good game with nice 3d crimsonland style gameplay ruined by needless online features so much, that when you start the game after not playing for a while you see ending cutscene and credits of someone winning the game
good game ruinded by A, B and C
That's not a good game at that point tbh.
that when you start the game after not playing for a while you see ending cutscene and credits of someone winning the game
Don't worry user, the shortbus isn't so bad
Yeah, real thing. Turned on the game only to see credits. Endings are based on online performance, and not on your individual campaign as a player.
What happens if you pirate it and play offline?
You cannot complete the game, obviously.
One of the worst first experiences I've had with a game. One of the factions was eliminated when I bought the game so I had to wait 2 weeks for the current online campaign to end before I got to see 1/3 of the content in the game.
Good thing it always looked like shit to me I guess. It even treats player in shitty way.
I suggest you playing good top down shooters like crimsonland, alien shooter 2 or brigador instead.
One of the factions was eliminated when I bought the game so I had to wait 2 weeks for the current online campaign to end before I got to see 1/3 of the content in the game.
That is massively stupid design.
I do buy good games.
and not on your individual campaign as a player
Because there is no individual campaign or anything resembling single player. It's going to happen absolutely anytime you step away from the game for a while; the credits will roll from when the galactic campaign you last played was beaten by the community and you contributed. You can always simply skip the thing if it bothers you, you'll see another credit roll in like two weeks.
The game is built around teamwork and ridiculous/hilarious fuckups which mostly involve idiots getting their teammates killed. It was never meant to be a single player thing or have a single player campaign. This is like complaining that a boat can't drive on land or that your mom's SUV can't cross the Hudson on its own, they're not meant to do so.
Now this however is a legit criticism, but I'm not sure how they'd get around that considering how the game is built.
Looks like ASSFAGGOTS trash gameplay.
this is offtopic but the only thing that kept me going in brigador was making money to unlock the descriptions and codex entries. They had surprisingly good worldbuilding. As far as the game goes though, it got very dull and repetitive pretty fast. Once you hit about 15-20 hours you've seen everything there is to see in the game and there's nothing to really keep you coming back. I'm not really sure how the devs could have improved it, I know they definitely did it out of genuine passion for it, but it was not as good as it could have been.
I played it for 9 hours and enjoyed myself immensely. It completely justifies its price.
If you managed to squeeze 15-20 hours out of it, lore or not, you don't get to complain.
It's a little, but very fun game with enough content to justify its price.
If you expect 60 hours outta some indie top down shooter, you're in the wrong here.
sage for offtopic yeah
I'm not sure how they'd get around that considering how the game is built
Easy, just make it so all three factions have to be eliminated at once. All 3 homeworld missions come up at once when all factions have been pushed back. So there's just a day where you can still fight all 3 factions but its about to be over.
I'm at 57 hours and personally I always find myself leaning towards the same setup; same vehicle, same weapons, same levels. I think if they made dying less punishing then there'd be more impetus to play differently but you get so little, it stops me from trying different things just because of how much of a waste of time it is if I die. Even if I could just choose the faction I fight in a run it would go a long way since corvids run mostly lost of small fast units whereas spacers have lots of big huge slow stuff so I could change up my weapon loadout to match.
But you can just skip it. At most it takes 20 seconds. Honestly the game has flaws already so there's no need to nitpick, like the fucking cyborg tanks that drop with zero fucking warning on top of you, making stealth impossible.
you don't get to complain
I played it because I bothered to pirate it and install it and I needed to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I don't like to make halfbaked judgements on games. Brigador wasn't bad, but it wasn't great. I think many people were expecting "isometric mechwarrior" and they got something far more simplistic. As difficulty goes up you also had to rely more and more on distractions rather than combat, which could make later levels take forever to complete.
Easy, just make it so all three factions have to be eliminated at once
The problem with that is that the factions push back, if you haven't noticed. So what if one faction gets pushed back to their homeworld and then people shift their focus to a different faction? You're going to be losing ground on the first one. Best case scenario, you either hope you have a large enough community that can use its activity to contain 2 factions while the 3rd gets pushed to its homeworld, or you readjust the values required for territory control. It would drag out campaigns longer than they are.
Explain yourself in detail user.
like the fucking cyborg tanks that drop with zero fucking warning on top of you, making stealth impossible
I'm a dead serious, I bought the game several years ago and the first time I played I had an issue with those tanks. I went through the discussions page. No one said a fucking thing about them. I made a massive post about how they're bullshit. Half the people agreed, the other half were underage b& who just spouted CYBORGS NOT HARD LOL.
Two or three fucking years later, m8, and that shit still exists. I played it again with my friend maybe 2-3 months back and when we ran into them again he just said "I cannot fucking believe they still have this shit in the game."
As far as "isometric mechwarrior" goes, it servers perfectly fine as a successor to genesis battletech game.
Why do campaigns even need to end? I mean it would make sense thematically if the war never ended but in gameplay terms it just restarts anyway so does it even really matter if the campaign never ends? One day the playerbase is going to be small enough that they won't be able to do it anyway. What are they going to do then? All I can think of is the bonus XP at the end and the cosmetic armour you get for being a veteran.
I like it
Isometric cooldown based gameplay that's bastardized from RTS.
I like it too but god damn
Reloads are cooldowns now?
are you brain damaged?
I was checking the wiki and there's a list of all the wars. The idea was that for every campaign the difficulty would adjust according to the performance of the playerbase. But after the players lost a couple of wars, not a single one has been lost. Looks like the devs didn't want people to get frustrated by losing.
That's like saying Diablo is a bastardized RTS. An isometric perspective is not exclusive to RTS.
I think he means the call-ins
wtf that's awful, so I'm never going to be able to get the veteran armour for losing a war? This idea gets worse the more I learn about it.
And why is that? Because of the overhead perspective? Please tell me you play something else apart mobas and overwatch.
Because there is no individual campaign or anything resembling single player.
What kind of top-down shooter doesn't have a fucking single player campaign when every single one before it has a campaign without any always online bullshit.
I am so glad I didn't have an attraction or a whim to this garbage.
game is in [genre] so its required to have a SP campaign
Your argument is retarded. What genre the game is in has absolutely nothing to do with whether the game is required to have a campaign. If people made an FPS that in online MP competitive only would you bitch then? If people made a fighting game that is only MP competitive would you bitch then? Because if you would then your complaint is actually "every single game in existence should have a single player campaign." If you wouldn't then you're a hypocrite.
All games should have a SP campaign.
Helldivers is fucking radical and OP is STILL a huge cockgargling niggerjew faggot.
I really enjoyed Helldivers for about half an hour until I started running into enemies that are unstoppable by your level in the game and the supposed solution is "just play online with the pay service you don't have to get backup via other players, goy!"
Endings are based on online performance, and not on your individual campaign as a player.
Then fuck the game entirely.
The game has a stealth mechanic except it's impossible to use properly in some parts. It's been a while since I played but I recall that the enemies will follow you even though they don't know you're there.
buy it thinking it would be a good couch co-op for saturday nights
play for a bit
fast forward two days
3 man couch co-op ready for action
every faction dead except for the last zone of ice fags or someshit
no good equipment to complete most of the missions
even then it's just some stupid shit XP boost
try to have fun for an hour
Great game, boyos. Recommended.
can't remember who wrote this but he said every good game can fall within these two. It sounds like Matosis or that razor guy.
____ is a good game ruined by short playtime, lack of antagonists, and a non-worthwhile ending.
____is a good game ruined by too many boring quests, poor replayabilty, and unlikable characters.
The point was to get across that picking a style has inherit cons that are near impossible to get rid of, and getting rid of them usually puts 2 other cons in its place.