An exercise in frustration

[TheComedicCommunist]

I'll come clean. I hate this, and refunded it two hours in. I played the ps4 version way back when but stopped at Mission 06. This time I stopped at Mission 02.
I just do not understand how anyone can enjoy this game when everything is working against you.
This is supposed to be an arcade type game isn't it? So why is it larping as a a sweatlord flight sim? You wouldn't expect the Burnout racing games to make you know how to tune a car, you just gas and go.
-Enemies always come up behind you and spam missiles thus adding the never ending missile alert noise but whenever I try and circle behind them they just turn with me.
-The game says to fly into the clouds to avoid missiles but then the games yells at you for icing up.
It says to perform a sharp turn but then ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ at you for stalling out, and all of this under a countdown timer.
I got down to one drone remaining and I spent 10 real life minutes trying to get behind it only for it to keep moving out of range and I finished the mission with 8 missiles and only a few minutes left. My team had zero issues tailing it, but despite that nobody was firing a single shot at it.
This isn't fun. This isn't productive. It feels like the devs are laughing behind my back that I actually tried to play it because it's so obviously a masochistic trap. AC7 strikes you in the face and cries out in pain as it does so.

tl;dr This is probably what Hell is like and this is not an arcade pilot game.
Think I'm done. I guess you guys can spam your git guds and clown emojis now

[BreezeLetterGaming]

Rastrelly lähetti viestin:

BreezeLetterGaming lähetti viestin:

I've played through PW more than once without ever using flares even once, in planes without AOAL. I can easily outmaneuver missiles in a ground attacker in that, just as easily as I can in AC7. They're really no different when it comes to how difficult missiles are to dodge without flares, with PW being maybe a little harder as it has significantly more planes targeting you at the same time on hard and mercenary difficulties.

You're not required to play more effectively in AC7, you're required to play more recklessly, ignoring planes on your tail and only barely dodging, or even occasionally just tanking, missiles. This is not criticism, it's praise, as it's exactly what Trigger would do. He's a reckless protag, and they've incorporated that well into their game design and gameplay.

By META I don't mean that there's some plane-part-weapon combo which is better than all others on all missions, I meant for each given mission, there is a combo which significantly trivializes the mission, and some missions where most comboes, or even all but one, will be frustrating to use. Not impossible, not necessarily difficult, just... Tedious and frustrating.

I have played PW with speed-demon and glass-cannon modifiers on. AC7 ain't difficult. Ever. And it's hardly any more difficult on Ace(a little disappointing, but it is what it is), but it does have frustrating aspects, this is a fact. That doesn't make it a bad game. It isn't a bad game, I quite like it.

I just don't get it, really. Name any mission, and I'll give you a full list of entertaining ways to beat it. Yes, there are harsh elements like trying to do an MG run on a low-tier plane, because it limits you really harshly, but overall not a single elements matters that much when you really master the game, and then you have tools to compensate for your weaknesses.

Plane too fragile? Get fuel tank and extigguisher.
Low SPW limit? get amount increase.
Too hard to manoeuvre? Get the appropriate parts.

You never need to be reckless, you just need to know what you are doing. In all missions you can go slower and more methodically, or faster with higher reward at higher risk. I cannot point at any element of AC7 ans say - nope, this is unbalanced. Except PLSL. PLSL is imba.

Project Wingman was far too much for me on merk. I have low reaction time, so I just cannot time my dodges or flaring there. And AOA limiter just methodically ♥♥♥♥♥ me over, dunno why. So I can clearly and strictly say from rather extended experience that AC7 never ♥♥♥♥♥ you over at any point. And this is why I insit that the only possible cause of frustration in AC can come from either misunderstanding what the mission requires, missing key callouts or tips, or indeed stubbornly refusing to adapt to circumstances. AC is far from flawless, it has some elements that can indeed be tedious when played the intended way (like M04's first part), but not frustrating. Actually, many missions would win a lot from certain randomization, like in M13 (the one with silos); if trucks in M08, or launch sites in M10 would spread differently each time, the core mechanic ofeach mission (tracking by radar and looking for trails respectively) would actually work on repeated plays.

So, first of all, there are people who get frustrated by this game, or events, aspects, design-decisions, even level-design, etc. That is a fact, which means there are things about this game, in this game, that are frustrating, at the very least, for some people. Enough for it to be a talking point.

Secondly: we actually agree, you yourself say what the causes of frustration could be, and if you look back at our conversation you will notice that you and I do not disagree on the things you mention in that context. I should also clarify that after getting appropriate planes, parts, and weapons, the time limit does not frustrate me.
Where we differ though, is that I still recognize that the time limit CAN be frustrating, if they are not very skilled, and also are not in possession of planes, parts, or weapons that can compensate for what one might be lacking in the skill department.
I personally think we should show some empathy to those who feel frustrated by some of the mission designs.
Rather than sweeping their woes aside simply because we are not ourselves as annoyed by the same things.

[Rastrelly]

King Fossil lähetti viestin:

I find the other games better at that though. Having cool antagonists who I don't want to kill makes me thinking fighting is bad. Having evil antagonists who deserve it makes me think sure, let's fight, if I kill them the world is a better place. It's not like I can stop them by any other means. They'll never listen to reason and be convinced not to be evil. The only option is to kill them.
Anyway, that's basically why I feel like AC5 is more pro violence than the other ACs. I think I've explained my position with as much detail as possible. Or at least most ACs, there's still 1/2 where your guy is just there to kill people and get paid. Or AH where the enemies are a death cult who go on a suicide mission at the end. But everyone hates AH.

Well I guess tht's the part of games as art that is open to interpretation. As I said before, I would categorically prefer to see the instigators of the Circumpacific War to be brought to justice not via bombing out of reality, but they are not really into living by the end as far as I remember.

Okay, ♥♥♥♥ it, I'm removing you from blocklist and, just in case, I do apologise if I was too rash in my judgement towards you.

PS I still do not think AC5 can be called "pro-war" though. I can agree that it can be interpreted as less anti-war than the others.

[Rastrelly]

BreezeLetterGaming lähetti viestin:

So, first of all, there are people who get frustrated by this game, or events, aspects, design-decisions, even level-design, etc. That is a fact, which means there are things about this game, in this game, that are frustrating, at the very least, for some people. Enough for it to be a talking point.

Secondly: we actually agree, you yourself say what the causes of frustration could be, and if you look back at our conversation you will notice that you and I do not disagree on the things you mention in that context. I should also clarify that after getting appropriate planes, parts, and weapons, the time limit does not frustrate me.
Where we differ though, is that I still recognize that the time limit CAN be frustrating, if they are not very skilled, and also are not in possession of planes, parts, or weapons that can compensate for what one might be lacking in the skill department.
I personally think we should show some empathy to those who feel frustrated by some of the mission designs.
Rather than sweeping their woes aside simply because we are not ourselves as annoyed by the same things.

Hell, I missed the post.
See, I split things into objective and subjective (not that I'm implying I invented the system XD). Some issues are the objective flaws of the game. For AC those would be brutally flawed technical implementation, causing driver-related issues, complete lack of in-game bindings for controllers and flightsticks, very anti-ergonomic decisions in aircraft tree etc. Some are unrelated to technicalities and are inherent to gameplay: lack of elementary replayability features, lack of scoring and ranking clarity, lack of certain effects that were present in previous games several generations before. Some of objective issues can be classified as frustrating. Say, in first Syberia, a game I absolutely love for the record, in Barrockshtadt, you have to run there and back again about five times across a long empty stretch just because, forced exclusively by scripted triggers which have zero logical foundations neither story-wise, nor logically. This is frustrating even the first time you play, but on repeated run it can literally drive a person mad. This is an objective source of frustration caused by an objective flaw in design. While there are no absolute, you are almost definitely will be frustrated by this blatant flaw.

The other issue is subjective sources of frustration, frustrations caused not inherently by the game, but by your own perception of it as a player. "I expect of the game the thing A, and the game does not do the thing A, therefore my actions aimed at forcing thing A result in thing B, which frustrates me". I will give another adventure example becauseit is very fresh in my mind. Deponia. A friend of mine was playing it in Dicord stream and he managed to skip all of Goals adorable shlabbawabbing because he clicked the last dialog line. Why? because he forgot that the last line is the one the always ends the dialog or drops out of branch. It was staten in the game's tutorial, but he forgot. Was this issue a bit frustrating? Yes. But whose fault it was, the game's or the player's?

[BreezeLetterGaming]

Rastrelly lähetti viestin:

BreezeLetterGaming lähetti viestin:

So, first of all, there are people who get frustrated by this game, or events, aspects, design-decisions, even level-design, etc. That is a fact, which means there are things about this game, in this game, that are frustrating, at the very least, for some people. Enough for it to be a talking point.

Secondly: we actually agree, you yourself say what the causes of frustration could be, and if you look back at our conversation you will notice that you and I do not disagree on the things you mention in that context. I should also clarify that after getting appropriate planes, parts, and weapons, the time limit does not frustrate me.
Where we differ though, is that I still recognize that the time limit CAN be frustrating, if they are not very skilled, and also are not in possession of planes, parts, or weapons that can compensate for what one might be lacking in the skill department.
I personally think we should show some empathy to those who feel frustrated by some of the mission designs.
Rather than sweeping their woes aside simply because we are not ourselves as annoyed by the same things.

Hell, I missed the post.
See, I split things into objective and subjective (not that I'm implying I invented the system XD). Some issues are the objective flaws of the game. For AC those would be brutally flawed technical implementation, causing driver-related issues, complete lack of in-game bindings for controllers and flightsticks, very anti-ergonomic decisions in aircraft tree etc. Some are unrelated to technicalities and are inherent to gameplay: lack of elementary replayability features, lack of scoring and ranking clarity, lack of certain effects that were present in previous games several generations before. Some of objective issues can be classified as frustrating. Say, in first Syberia, a game I absolutely love for the record, in Barrockshtadt, you have to run there and back again about five times across a long empty stretch just because, forced exclusively by scripted triggers which have zero logical foundations neither story-wise, nor logically. This is frustrating even the first time you play, but on repeated run it can literally drive a person mad. This is an objective source of frustration caused by an objective flaw in design. While there are no absolute, you are almost definitely will be frustrated by this blatant flaw.

The other issue is subjective sources of frustration, frustrations caused not inherently by the game, but by your own perception of it as a player. "I expect of the game the thing A, and the game does not do the thing A, therefore my actions aimed at forcing thing A result in thing B, which frustrates me". I will give another adventure example becauseit is very fresh in my mind. Deponia. A friend of mine was playing it in Dicord stream and he managed to skip all of Goals adorable shlabbawabbing because he clicked the last dialog line. Why? because he forgot that the last line is the one the always ends the dialog or drops out of branch. It was staten in the game's tutorial, but he forgot. Was this issue a bit frustrating? Yes. But whose fault it was, the game's or the player's?

I don't think that is a fair comparison as it is not the player's choice whether there is a time limit or not. The time limit can be frustrating whether you succeed in the mission or not.
Me personally for example, wanted more out of the game, but the time limits artificially limit the amount of enjoyment I can get out of each mission, both directly: by cutting short fun furballs and dogfights.
This could have been fixed in certain missions by having the time-limit apply to the score-attack, and then removing the time-limit once the score is reached, and incorporating a different way the mission ends in the case of success, such as for example: leaving via a map edge, like the resupplies, or the Magma Carta mission in PW.

And indirectly: By limiting the amount of freedom I have to experiment with loadouts and playstyles. This is frustrating, and can hardly be called my fault. I like the game, I wanna play the game, but the game sometimes feels like it doesn't want to be played.

It is an objective fact, that there are aspects of this game that players find frustrating, not all, but definitely not zero.

[Rastrelly]

BreezeLetterGaming lähetti viestin:

I don't think that is a fair comparison as it is not the player's choice whether there is a time limit or not. The time limit can be frustrating whether you succeed in the mission or not.
Me personally for example, wanted more out of the game, but the time limits artificially limit the amount of enjoyment I can get out of each mission, both directly: by cutting short fun furballs and dogfights.
This could have been fixed in certain missions by having the time-limit apply to the score-attack, and then removing the time-limit once the score is reached, and incorporating a different way the mission ends in the case of success, such as for example: leaving via a map edge, like the resupplies, or the Magma Carta mission in PW.

And indirectly: By limiting the amount of freedom I have to experiment with loadouts and playstyles. This is frustrating, and can hardly be called my fault. I like the game, I wanna play the game, but the game sometimes feels like it doesn't want to be played.

It is an objective fact, that there are aspects of this game that players find frustrating, not all, but definitely not zero.

Yes, and it is normal. Every game aims at a certain audience. I played Fahrenheit Indigo Prophecy a couple of days ago, and I found the game I hate the most in all of gaming. I find it infinitely ass-backwards deeply pretentious garbage that should be burned with the books on witchcraft in the fires of Inquisition. But there are people who sincerely love it. Games are not made to please everyone, and with time limits removed Ace Combat would stop being Ace Combat. If you prefer Project Wingman - you have it, as well as, I am sure, a bunch of other flying arcades you'd like more then any Ace Combat game (not necessarily YOU personally, mind you, an abstract "you"). Did I get frustrated when played AC7 for the first time/ believe me, I was ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ dying over missions 5, 6, 8, 11, and especially 12 etc. I did not understand what the game expects of me, I died over and over due to stupid reasons, but overcoming this frustration was one of the most pleasant gaming experiences I had in years. And I still suck at Ace Combat hard. But I far prefer AC's design to PW's design. I just don't say that "PW is frustrating, make less planes and add in tunnel run and mission timers". I played PW on Hard, I tried on Merc several times, understood that that experience is not for me and went out deeply satisfied with my Project Wingman experience.

[BreezeLetterGaming]

Rastrelly lähetti viestin:

BreezeLetterGaming lähetti viestin:

I don't think that is a fair comparison as it is not the player's choice whether there is a time limit or not. The time limit can be frustrating whether you succeed in the mission or not.
Me personally for example, wanted more out of the game, but the time limits artificially limit the amount of enjoyment I can get out of each mission, both directly: by cutting short fun furballs and dogfights.
This could have been fixed in certain missions by having the time-limit apply to the score-attack, and then removing the time-limit once the score is reached, and incorporating a different way the mission ends in the case of success, such as for example: leaving via a map edge, like the resupplies, or the Magma Carta mission in PW.

And indirectly: By limiting the amount of freedom I have to experiment with loadouts and playstyles. This is frustrating, and can hardly be called my fault. I like the game, I wanna play the game, but the game sometimes feels like it doesn't want to be played.

It is an objective fact, that there are aspects of this game that players find frustrating, not all, but definitely not zero.

Yes, and it is normal. Every game aims at a certain audience. I played Fahrenheit Indigo Prophecy a couple of days ago, and I found the game I hate the most in all of gaming. I find it infinitely ass-backwards deeply pretentious garbage that should be burned with the books on witchcraft in the fires of Inquisition. But there are people who sincerely love it. Games are not made to please everyone, and with time limits removed Ace Combat would stop being Ace Combat. If you prefer Project Wingman - you have it, as well as, I am sure, a bunch of other flying arcades you'd like more then any Ace Combat game (not necessarily YOU personally, mind you, an abstract "you"). Did I get frustrated when played AC7 for the first time/ believe me, I was ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ dying over missions 5, 6, 8, 11, and especially 12 etc. I did not understand what the game expects of me, I died over and over due to stupid reasons, but overcoming this frustration was one of the most pleasant gaming experiences I had in years. And I still suck at Ace Combat hard. But I far prefer AC's design to PW's design. I just don't say that "PW is frustrating, make less planes and add in tunnel run and mission timers". I played PW on Hard, I tried on Merc several times, understood that that experience is not for me and went out deeply satisfied with my Project Wingman experience.

I can definitely agree that the Fahrenheit game is a pretentious garbage bait game, and I don't see how anyone can praise it for... Anything, really.

But in any case, I don't think you understood what I meant by "unfair comparison" so I'll try to explain it, by MAKING it a fair comparison:
Take Deponia for example, for us to properly use your example to compare it to the grievance people have with the time limits in AC7, we will need to slap a time limit on the conversation you mentioned.
Not too strict, just strict enough that if you were to get up mid conversation, get a glass of water and a cookie, for example, that you'd not physically have enough time to enjoy the entirety of the remaining conversation. You'd be forced to skip at least 30% of the voice line each time, or you'd "fail", be kicked out of the conversation, and be unable to try again unless you reload a save before the conversation.
Now, in this example, is it the game's fault that you got up and got yourself some water and a cookie? I'd say no, but is it then reasonable for the game to punish you for doing something sub-optimal, but which elevates the enjoyment you receive from your time?

The "getting water and a cookie" scenario I am using as a comparison to "wasting" time on enjoying dogfights, or going through tunnels, etc.

Additionally, I would like to remind you that at least 60%, possibly up to 80% of the time limits in the game are entirely, 100% arbitrary. Ironically, the few times the time limits do make sense, they are either illogically short(The time running out and the president flying into the tower when he's clearly over a kilometer away), or much, MUCH too leniently long, so long that they are completely irrelevant, and you'd have to deliberately run out the time to fail that way.

I have yet to hear a good reason for time limits not being optional, at least for most of the missions. I don't think time limits should be removed entirely, they are a stable of the Ace Combat series as far as I can see (I haven't actually played any other AC's, just 7), but it would be nice at least for there to be a way to replay missions without a timer. I'm not necessarily saying it would benefit the game to be able to remove the timers for a player's first playthrough(I am a little miffed at the weird, arbitrary nature of their strictness occasionally though), but a way to play the missions without a timer, after you've completed them, maybe even only after finishing the campaign on normal, or even hard, would definitely improve my, and I suspect a fair number of other players', opinion of the game.

[Rastrelly]

Theoretically, the timers were supposed to represent the amount of fuel you have to complete operations in target airspace.

As for Deponia example, the proper one would be like this: you arrive at Kuvaq, and have to make coffee to wake up Goal. In our version she shall wake up by herself in 30 minutes and will be given to Wenzel, so you have to make it through the first part of Kuvaq under this limitation. YOUR example, on the otjer hand, was used in another game...... You know WHICH ONE

And I don't think AC7 needs timerless mode, it would really be mostly a chore to get through. What it needs is skirmish mode and analog of Arcade from AC04. But alas.

[BreezeLetterGaming]

Rastrelly lähetti viestin:

Theoretically, the timers were supposed to represent the amount of fuel you have to complete operations in target airspace.

As for Deponia example, the proper one would be like this: you arrive at Kuvaq, and have to make coffee to wake up Goal. In our version she shall wake up by herself in 30 minutes and will be given to Wenzel, so you have to make it through the first part of Kuvaq under this limitation. YOUR example, on the otjer hand, was used in another game...... You know WHICH ONE :rcry:

And I don't think AC7 needs timerless mode, it would really be mostly a chore to get through. What it needs is skirmish mode and analog of Arcade from AC04. But alas.

I think a skirmish mode is what I mean. Which is exactly what a timerless mode would kinda be. Hell, a sort of boss rush would also be fun, with Mihaly, other aces, and the final drones, along with the ADFX-10, spawning in perhaps bigger and bigger waves, until you just can't keep up anymore.

As for the fuel being the limitation, that is NOT the amount of fuel I would expect in those super high tech planes, capable of carrying over a hundred missiles, but not enough fuel for a mission lasting longer than 15 minutes, that's not even a realistic estimate of the potential operating time for a modern fighter jet. Besides, it's never explicitly said that it is the fuel being the limitation, lots of other, albeit arbitrary and not very logical, if at all, reasons are given for the time limits, some being as frustratingly pointless as your CO being impatient.
Yes, I am aware that we often refuel before the long range missions, so fuel is a thing in the Strangereal universe, but that's just the thing. You JUST refueled. And if the fuel was an issue, using afterburners and even just throttling up the engine should deplete the timer faster. So that's a cop-out. Plus, they can't use the fuel as a limitation for another reason in these scenarios. There's a refueling plane... Low on fuel? Just refuel on the way back too.

[Rastrelly]

BreezeLetterGaming lähetti viestin:

As for the fuel being the limitation, that is NOT the amount of fuel I would expect in those super high tech planes, capable of carrying over a hundred missiles, but not enough fuel for a mission lasting longer than 15 minutes, that's not even a realistic estimate of the potential operating time for a modern fighter jet. Besides, it's never explicitly said that it is the fuel being the limitation, lots of other, albeit arbitrary and not very logical, if at all, reasons are given for the time limits, some being as frustratingly pointless as your CO being impatient.
Yes, I am aware that we often refuel before the long range missions, so fuel is a thing in the Strangereal universe, but that's just the thing. You JUST refueled. And if the fuel was an issue, using afterburners and even just throttling up the engine should deplete the timer faster. So that's a cop-out. Plus, they can't use the fuel as a limitation for another reason in these scenarios. There's a refueling plane... Low on fuel? Just refuel on the way back too.

Well, say F-18 has enough fuel to go up to 1000 km radius. In AC7 you mostly go far beyond that from takeoff point. And, if mission takes place deep in enemy territory, you cannot drag the refueler too close, so your operational range is realistically limited by the farthest point you can get the refueler + 1000 km. There you can basically invent any limitations. In any case, the games obviously don't really bother with calculating distances or realistic routing :D

[paomayo]

BreezeLetterGaming lähetti viestin:

I think a skirmish mode is what I mean. Which is exactly what a timerless mode would kinda be. Hell, a sort of boss rush would also be fun, with Mihaly, other aces, and the final drones, along with the ADFX-10, spawning in perhaps bigger and bigger waves, until you just can't keep up anymore.

Ever been to an arcade with the old games still running? They both have timers (some requiring you to do something in order to extend it like passing a checkpoint in a racing game). AC5's Arcade Mode follows this particular principle.

[Ice Man]

Rastrelly lähetti viestin:

BreezeLetterGaming lähetti viestin:

It is an objective fact, that there are aspects of this game that players find frustrating, not all, but definitely not zero.

Yes, and it is normal.

You see you could have left it at that two weeks ago

[King Fossil]

One thing to note is that the two most successful Ace Combats before 7 both had a heavy focus on timed missions. So maybe the devs just thought they should continue with that.

[BreezeLetterGaming]

paomayo lähetti viestin:

BreezeLetterGaming lähetti viestin:

I think a skirmish mode is what I mean. Which is exactly what a timerless mode would kinda be. Hell, a sort of boss rush would also be fun, with Mihaly, other aces, and the final drones, along with the ADFX-10, spawning in perhaps bigger and bigger waves, until you just can't keep up anymore.

Ever been to an arcade with the old games still running? They both have timers (some requiring you to do something in order to extend it like passing a checkpoint in a racing game). AC5's Arcade Mode follows this particular principle.

We don't have those old arcades in my country, the really old arcade machines can almost only be found in museums here.
That or it's just because they're all in the city... I live out in the (relative) boonies.

[BreezeLetterGaming]

Ice Man lähetti viestin:

Rastrelly lähetti viestin:

Yes, and it is normal.

You see you could have left it at that two weeks ago

Something being normal, does not make it good.

[BreezeLetterGaming]

King Fossil lähetti viestin:

One thing to note is that the two most successful Ace Combats before 7 both had a heavy focus on timed missions. So maybe the devs just thought they should continue with that.

Options are rarely a bad thing, they can be, but they rarely are.

I can see how they'd focus on it if what you say is true. This does not however have any effect on any of my arguments, as I have been voicing my dissatisfaction with the implementation of the time limits. I've even explicitly said that I do not think the game should NOT have time limits.