More missions please

Feedback/Feature Requests
22

If you prefer to only take a single shot at something and let that stand, that’s what you like, and that’s fine. I have no problem with that at all.

Where it gets weird for me is where you say, "This is what I like, and therefore, the game should force me (and everybody else) to."

I mean, why? If it’s fun, you’ll already do it voluntarily, right? Because it’s fun?

If it’s fun, the game doesn’t really have to force you, it can entice you. Why enforce a thing you’d do voluntarily, anyway? It would stand to reason that you have nothing to gain by that, but at the same time would just make the experience worse for people who don’t like things that way. Lose-lose?
It’s like you’re saying, “I’d prefer it be done this way, but it’s not actually fun, and I don’t have the discipline to do it inspite of it not being fun, so I want the game to discipline me.”

Note if you will that this is the inverse of the above, “I’d like to pacify some villages, could we have some missions for that?”
You can already do that, so if that’s what you think you’d enjoy, just go and do it? :+1:

There seems to be this pattern where people think a certain thing the game already lets them do would be fun, but somehow it doesn’t feel real to them until the game confirms it’s the right thing to do. As emancipated gamers, let’s take responsibility for our own fun and preferences! They’re real whether the game approves or not! :smile:

23

The @Zesiir challenge seems a good, positive example of this; people who like that sort of thing voluntarily go out with a limited inventory (and whatever else is part of the challenge, I don’t know), without needing for there to be an official game mode for it, and everybody else just ignores it.

1 Like
24

Honestly? That is about right. I lack the discipline to live with how events turn out sometimes in games. So I am happy with the game giving me no choice. Otherwise I end up taking the meta view (was this a good run? if not, rinse, repeat) and that takes me out of the atmosphere. So I personally like how the game works.

It always feels different if someone or something makes it official, makes it a “thing”, something where you can put a checkmark behind. Now that Xezr and others made this hardcore challenge a thing, I actually might try it out. There is a gazillion of weird quirky ways to walk through this game, but if something gets a thing, an incentive arises to it. That is I think how motivation works.

EDIT: BUT I am just voicing my very own opinions here. Nothing more.

Another example regarding this game and discipline: I personally play without the experimental weapons so far. I like the challenge and I think that the .50 cal in particular is vastly overpowered (the regular one already is super strong). So I refrain for now. But that makes a certain meta perspective salient in my mind every time I think about it. And this reduces my immersion to a certain extent. So I’d rather like the game to take care of that vs. me forcing myself not to give in to certain temptations.

25

I get that, but at least, it takes you out of the atmosphere after you complete the mission, and you get to enjoy it while it lasts?

If I only have one shot at a mission, I already worry during the mission whether it’s a good run, diminishing the enjoyment of the mission even while I’m playing it.

Your mileage may vary, but I’d rather the immersion break after the mission than during.

I’d rather the fun stops after the mission than during.

At least that way, I’ll have fun while it lasts.

But that part of course is personal preference.

26

I would be continuously optimizing, thinking about it during the mission, aborting if I can see something won’t work as I intended. But I can be extreme in that sense.

Well, the game is very forgiving. It does not really matter whether you do particularly well. Aside from the final mission you mentioned, you can revisit locations for collectibles, you’ll soon find wasted ammo again, and so on. Currently, I just do stuff and performance is none of my concern and that gives this game a nice relaxed flow. I like that.

27

Maybe that’s the difference?

I still wonder about that, except now if I decide I could’ve done a more interesting/fun thing, I have the “agony” of knowing it will never happen.

Perhaps you can settle into, “Well, there’s no changing it, so why dwell on it?”

Interesting, it’s the exact opposite for me:

  • I always found the regular .50 far too weak, both in bang for the buck (“Is it worth two inventory slots, plus ammo?”), and compared to what it felt like during beta.
  • Therefore, I sympathize with shunning the experimental weapons for flavor reasons (“Too sci-fi”, “no realistic enough”, etc.), except for the .50, which I feel provides a much needed fix for a weapon that was simply broken in the main game. (Admittedly, I’d happily have settled for a more powerful .50, without the hum and “railgun” trimmings.)

As mentioned above, I’d enjoy re-running Spiking the Guns, for one thing. Use characters with different specialties (sneak+snipe, guns blazing, engineer, …), but even just to approach the installation from a different direction.

That said, I’ve also already had two missions in the DLC that would qualify. One is “the resistance” where many difference strategies are possible (though in that case the game certainly “helped” with the repeating by providing crashes, failspawns, level 4 rival apo tanks gatecrashing the party, and so on :smile:).
For that matter, in retrospection I might have liked to approach Hellmouth from a different direction.

And for that matter, going back to the main game, I’ll now forever wonder whether the door at very bottom of “Wrench in the works” could’ve been opened if I’d arrived earlier or applied myself more, or something. Probably not, but it’d be nice to know for sure.

1 Like
28

I think we can agree to disagree. Which is fine for me. Maybe I change my mind once I have played through the base game. Except…

That one can one-shot a runner no matter where you hit. Taking out the entourage of a harvester is a matter of seconds: you’re dead, and you’re dead, and you’re dead, and so on. Its like quake champions instagib. I did that once and put it back into the plundra.

EDIT: @Zesiir We are on topic. I swear. :grimacing:

1 Like
29

Don’t worry about it :smile:

@Ennui Maybe I’m just overly creative, but that’s the beauty of an open world sandbox. I can play how I want to. Choose to play differently, and it works. A few more gameplay options wouldn’t hurt to add more depth, but that’s for the future to bring.

2 Likes
30

Sure, and I think you’ll find I went on record very much in favor of that. :wink:

(Personally, I’m probably more liable to try all kinds of stupid %$#%#, my death count is probably hard to beat. :smile:)

1 Like
31

Ennui wants to try out different styles in a more dynamic way. And I can see how that would be fun.

32

And I would expect no less. Otherwise, what’s the point? If I’m just going to flatten ammo on the bot, I might as well do it with a gun with a higher rate of fire. Or with a hunting rifle that takes a suppressor.

I mean, we’re talking about pretty much the lowest enemy tier here.

Now, before you say “but it makes the game too easy”: First off, there’s the obvious option you’re already implementing (and hats off to you), “If you don’t like it, don’t use it.”

But second, there’s how it was handled in the beta: the .50 was strong, but ammo was rare.
So you could take out a bunch of runners with it, but then you’d lack the ammo later in more dire circumstances. I.e. you could, but you probably wouldn’t want to. That seems a much more organic and “realistic” way of handling things, if one is of the conviction that these things need to be enforced or balanced.

Basically, I can bear the idea that different people like different things with great fortitude.
You like to take one shot at things, I like the opportunity to revisit things (which I may then do, or not do), and that’s fine. Two great people, two great preferences.

Where it gets difficult for me is when realizing that multi-saves mean people who like to go back can, and people who don’t don’t have to, whereas enforcing single-saves only caters to one group and leaves the other out in the rain. Because at that point, it’s just a polite re-phrasing of “screw you, I got mine.”

As I wrote previously, I strongly believe that wherever possible, a game should always take the more permissive stance (e.g. rather than remove adrenaline, keep it, people who find it makes things too easy don’t have to use it) so the greatest number of people can play how they like. The more permissive option usually includes the less permissive option, but never vice versa.

1 Like
33

My objection is that this gun eliminates the need for aiming. You can take out runners with one shot with many weapons in case you aim properly. I see no point of throwing a weapons in the game that removes this skill completely.

No. I like the fact that I have no second attempt. You would like to. Those two are not compatible.

EDIT: I will stop posting here now. We are actually getting off track. The save system can be connected to mission design (repeatability), but not really more missions as in the title.

1 Like
34

But you don’t have to take it. You seem perfectly capable of not using the experimental weapons you don’t like, but you can’t resist with multi-saves? If this is an issue that needs to be addressed, shouldn’t it be fixed in the player rather than in the game? :smile:

35

Well, it’s a railgun. Imagine if it was Quake 2, and you were forced to use it without a scope, relying solely on hitscan and how quick you could put the crosshair over an enemy.

FNIX Runners can take multiple blasts of the the X-PVG90. Same could be said for most of the FNIX types. Though it punches nice, big holes in any of the lesser classes.

Regarding missions, I could definitely see some type of Horde/Invasion type missions now that we’ve seen it in Alpine Unrest. I’d say more but, spoilers. But it’s something that could work, if one made it so enemies won’t randomly patrol into the area, for the sake of performance.

1 Like
36

Oh boy, can’t wait to finish the base game! Restraining myself (again!) from starting the DLC before that.

1 Like
37

True, though for the time being, it’s also something that needs work.
The damn thing’s failed three times for me due to reasons beyond my control. (I might still be incompetent at it, but the damn thing never gave me an even chance to find out.)

Such is the lot of the early adopter, I guess. :smile:

1 Like
38

That’s the crux of it. Choice, and agency. Once you’ve lost that flexibility it’s no longer play, it’s work. A task. And this goes across the board. The weapons, the robots, the play styles, the missions…

1 Like
39

What I really liked about the DLC is the NPC’s telling me the story, it was way more engaging that the main story that I had hard time following. Thinking about it, I do not know what the main game story was.

Now, random missions maybe would make sense, but for it to make sense there would be a need for variety, not just go there and kill that, and there it gets tricky.

  1. Seek and destroy
  2. Supply run
  3. Personel rescue mission
  4. Communication infrastructure repair
  5. Clear a settlement
  6. Cripple enemy coms (relay beacons)
  7. Defend an outpost.

What else would make sense?

2 Likes
40

Completed , just a ski slope and tapes left … More missions please :sweat_smile:

41

There almost wasn’t one.
There was a limited amount of backstory that happened before the game starts, but after a short lead-in of “I tried to find people, they weren’t there”, the story we actually experience is almost exclusively a loop of,

  • I shot a bot
  • I found out some backstory
  • I shot a bot
  • I found out some backstory
  • …

It’s not until very late that we’re learning about (and experiencing!) current events, rather than about things that happened before the start of the game.

(And that’s as far as I’ll go here, because, spoilers.)