ติดตั้ง Steam
เข้าสู่ระบบ
|
ภาษา
简体中文 (จีนตัวย่อ)
繁體中文 (จีนตัวเต็ม)
日本語 (ญี่ปุ่น)
한국어 (เกาหลี)
български (บัลแกเรีย)
Čeština (เช็ก)
Dansk (เดนมาร์ก)
Deutsch (เยอรมัน)
English (อังกฤษ)
Español - España (สเปน)
Español - Latinoamérica (สเปน - ลาตินอเมริกา)
Ελληνικά (กรีก)
Français (ฝรั่งเศส)
Italiano (อิตาลี)
Bahasa Indonesia (อินโดนีเซีย)
Magyar (ฮังการี)
Nederlands (ดัตช์)
Norsk (นอร์เวย์)
Polski (โปแลนด์)
Português (โปรตุเกส - โปรตุเกส)
Português - Brasil (โปรตุเกส - บราซิล)
Română (โรมาเนีย)
Русский (รัสเซีย)
Suomi (ฟินแลนด์)
Svenska (สวีเดน)
Türkçe (ตุรกี)
Tiếng Việt (เวียดนาม)
Українська (ยูเครน)
รายงานปัญหาเกี่ยวกับการแปลภาษา
กฎและแนวทางปฏิบัติในกระดานสนทนา
รายงานโพสต์นี้
I belive they are just suffering from succes, since I'm sure they didnt expect the game to blow as it did, and now cant keep up with the updates and fixes.
Some of you just should realize that maybe this game isnt for you, and there is nothing wrong with that, if you dont enjoy the base game loop, just drop it, instead of telling the devs to change the game. Lvl 75 here and still having fun.
I never claimed the devs made a bad game. They created something fun and engaging, but they didn’t foresee how balance issues would impact the long-term experience. Despite numerous updates, those balance problems persist. Just because some players can work around these issues doesn’t mean they’re not there. Your defense of the game ignores these flaws and paints an overly rosy picture. Care to address the balance concerns instead of sidestepping them?
It's good that you and your friends are having such a good time and making the teamwork work for you. Everyone's experience can be different, though, and some folks have their own issues with the game. Hopefully, the devs can find a way to balance things out for everyone.
I belive a lot of run and gun comes because when you play with randoms, most of the time there is no comunication and we all run like headless chicken trying to do the objective.
I'm not denying the fact that the game has issues, some weapons still need a rework, but I do belive that the game has a good solid game loop.
Outside of the rare "Dan Hibiki" style joke option/character making something bad on purpose feels more like actively trolling the player than anything else.
So I don't really get anyone who claims that approach either, I understand wanting things balanced (excessively so notwithstanding), but the concept of "Most tools you have are mediocre because it's satire" is just such a wonky take to me.
Helldivers is the opposite of that.
You are just a fanatic soldier, with the will to win and tools to get the job done, but nothing more. You are not a godlike space child with void magic and a flesh-and-steel golem at your disposal, you are a single human up against a ravenous horde of space bugs and the ruthless army of a sentient A.I. You are up against near-impossible odds, always, and you only have a very limited arsenal and your own fragile body to help you stay alive long enough to get the job done. And even if you die, there is about 327459835879023 more soldiers Super Earth has at its disposal to throw into the meat grinder. One less Helldiver is of no consequence.
The player is not significant - the player is disposable and expendable, just like every single drop pod and turret the player calls in.
The only similarities Warframe and Helldivers 2 has is that they are primarily in 3rd person, and in both games there are a LOT of enemies being thrown at the player.... but in a vastly different power dynamic.
Where Warframe makes you feel powerful, Helldivers 2 makes you feel powerless.
I do agree that both are quite chaotic a lot of the time, but again, for vastly different reasons.
In Waframe it is always the player who dictates who gets to do what and in what order while the enemy has to struggle just to get a foot in the door. Meanwhile in Helldivers 2 it is the enemy who is in charge, and the player just has to dance by their tune and go with the flow rather than try to force their way.
In Warframe, strategy and coordination is rarely required for anything at all.... meanwhile in Helldivers team strategy and good coordination can make things significantly easier.
In short, while careful planning is not something that can be done often in Helldivers it still is a valuable thing to have and can make a near-impossible situation into a likely success.
I wouldn't worry about the whole game falling apart in the chaos aspect.... Yet.
Or do you mean the specific issues I mentioned with the patrol spawns being broken, on purpose - and staying like that for well over a month, because someone had gotten it into their heads that static spawns on a countdown was a good idea? Are those "balance" issues relevant to you at all?
That's not what anyone is saying. The weapons should be powerful, and they should be useful. Like Pilestedt said it, the ttk is too long.
Basically: You should be able to survive most engagements by yourself, and do a lot of damage. But you shouldn't be able to march through the front-lines unopposed. We are not supposed to be an invincible army. So even if we should be able to win every engagement - we should still be pressured along the way.
If we were just looking at game-design here for a moment, and thinking about it as a random story - if you designed a game where the player wins without losses.. what would be the point? Gears of War is supposedly a power-fantasy - and yet, you don't win without being opposed. Halo is about a one-man army thundering through the alien world - and yet, you can die pretty hard if you're not careful. What's that all about?
The setup in HD2 is that you're dropped in, you have powerful tools - but you /can/ be swarmed, and you can and probably will lose, if you're not careful. It just makes sense.
And the only thing that makes it so that it shouldn't is if you somehow believe Super-Earth's propaganda and think that the game design should fulfill the fantasy of being able to level any planet and win the war with ease? It just makes no sense.
The guy up there is even worse: oh, the game doesn't have any depth, it doesn't have a long term viability. But somehow making the game have no tension, no challenge, and become a "power fantasy" -- by which we appear to mean: "succeeding without difficulties" -- will give the game long-term viability? When you can just log on, click a button, and win without any effort? And "play the game like it was intended", as one said it, by marching down the front line and shooting everything to bits?
This stuff makes no sense.
Thanks for this comment. I don't understand why people bring Helldivers 1 as if it were peak game design, with its 3 digit player base, only surpassing that whenever it was free.
So, you're talking about balance issues like aiming challenges and emptying magazines without a thought? And the patrol spawns, which were static for over a month, were a good idea in your book or do you preffer how it is right now? It's interesting how you focus on these specifics. But what about the broader balance problems that impact overall gameplay? The issue isn’t just about minor tweaks; it’s about ensuring the game remains fun and engaging for everyone. Are these small details really the hill to die on when the bigger picture shows ongoing balance problems?
As I've mentioned, regardless of what I point out, you distort it and continue to defend the game. If I were to express the exact same sentiments as you, but as a critique of the game, you would argue the opposite. Ironically, you seem to be the one displaying fanaticism.
Klaus, let's be honest here—there's a significant portion of the player base that's unhappy with the current state of the game. Ignoring this makes it seem like you're simply defending the game without considering its faults.
A good feedback. I'll keep that in consideration. Thank you.
I don't mind that much either way because the game was very simple to begin with and ~90% of a match is still dependent on if people bring gear to blow up armor and objectives.
It's also not the case that you had to run constantly - the design of the game is that you are in control for most of the time as long as you can choose where to attack, or can reposition the squad when things really go sideways.
What you can't do is hold a mission point endlessly, or exhaust the enemy forces somehow. So there's some tension there - you're a special(not special needs) force, with solid enough firepower, able to punch through the enemy and complete missions. But you're not strong enough to endlessly defend against the infinite enemy reinforcements.
And that's what they ran with in both games.
This.. is a type of design that other, popular games have used before, too. Specifically to avoid either obliterating the enemy and not getting a challenge, or to end up having the difficulty ramp up linearly. Because avoiding that lets you get away with putting the player in a situation that seems overwhelming, but where you then - mostly genuinely - only succeed if you feel like you added something as a player in the end. That it wasn't just about having that upgraded weapon or not, or whether or not you saved up a screen-wipe for the right moment, etc. You turned a bad situation around because you were a good player.
And all the changes to the game detracted from that. You won because you understood the meta, you won because you used the right code and spammed it well. You won because you were clever outside of the game-universe.
It's a notorious issue with the game, brought on by someone who wants a completely different game than what was there to begin with. And the patrol spawns were, until the latest (.4) patch, just broken. They didn't scale, they spawned on your shoulder, they homed in on the players, etc. It was designed by someone who thought marching across the map and playing the game was boring, I think.
But I added it as an example, because wondered what sort of "balance" you were really talking about. Which we arrived at at the end: when you say "balance problems" and complain about details about a weapon, or how the experience is in terms of patrol spawn rate (specific things) -- what you're really talking about is fundamental game-design changes tuned to suit some kind of subjective standard of an imagined player's experience. An overall "impression" and feel of the game that you then can't really describe, outside of that it should be a "power fantasy".
When the rest of us are talking about "balance", what we mean are things like how much damage a gun does, what role a gun is playing, how a stratagem is used and how it impacts how the game is played. Do we have enough bullets, is the range of the weapons too high or too low. All inside the context of "how does this fit into the game's design".
So you seem to want to fix perceived "balance" problems by changing the design of the game to suit a very specific type of player - who clearly would not enjoy playing this game to begin with. And like I said, would also have a very hard time enjoying the setup in Halo, Cod, Battlefield, and so on.
That's fine that you have that opinion -- but you're going to have to argue for why a game that sold 12 million units somehow suffers from a bad design. Or why these other games with similar designs somehow don't suffer from the problem that you perceive HD2 has.
Another thing -- everyone who played hd1 knows that there's going to be another enemy coming in. And with the new "game-master" setup, with inline missions and ability to participate in it, you're really not talking about HD2 when you're talking about a lack of "end game" content. You're talking about a game that you're imagining off a couple of comments on the internet.
Same with the idea that the design is flat. Everything that was shoved into the game after launch, with the excuse of "fans want this" has made the game flatter, that's for absolutely certain. The static timer on the spawns, the predictable nature of it, the removal of patrolling spawns, etc. all has made the design flatter. Same with the damage tweaking, tuned to a specific type of frontal assault setup - has made the game flat and boring.
But the design in the game, like was there in hd1, is not flat. The dynamic squad-shooter aspect in HD2 is deep, and there is no other shop that sells that in the "casual" sphere. That's just a fact.
You might not like it. But to suggest that a game that basically brings the possibility of running a squad like in ARMA or Tarkov to a casual audience, without the need to go to boot-camp for a year to learn codes and communication, and so on -- is shallow?
I mean, you do understand that the biggest criticism against the game - and what has driven these "simplification" tweaks motivated by "community feedback" - actually comes from how the game is too hard and complex for the average ps5 player? Right..?
All of this stuff that's going on on the forums here, and in the discord - it's just sheer opposite-world, existing in a small internet-bubble, free of any connection to practically anything outside it.