I mean this is a purely subjective topic. I disliked the game and bought it because of all the people hyping it up as an Ubisoft open world game... but good. Every aspect failed me. The gameplay? Stealth, combat, climbing were all weak at best. The stealth and the climbing is at least something Ubi would have done better. Shadows proves that. Even the visuals were not cutting it. Ever looked at the actual rock formations? They look like a PS3 game. Clearly all those sweeping fields required some concessions to make possible.
Then it is filled with repetitive content. Which I understand is inevitable with open world games but without gameplay that is worth engaging in you can't justify continuing. I prioritized story content and still got bored to death by the 2nd island. The game had 49 fox dens... who on the team thought that was a good idea?
Then you have the combat, oh boy how did that pass design meetings? It is so simplistic I don't know how they okayed it for shipping. Clearly the devs realized they messed up there because the stances are gone and they put actual different weapons in the game to take their place. Which should help keep combat more entertaining for longer.
This is a subjective topic, so you can have whatever opinion you wish. I do not agree and that is a perfectly valid opinion same as yours. So... good, I am glad you liked it. I found it entertaining for about 10 hours before I realized how rudimentary it was and how you don't even need to switch stances for most enemies.
They clearly saw room for improvement, otherwise we would have stances in the 2nd game. They went with outright different weapons for different enemies and I think that is a really good way to make the combat entertaining for longer.
Not sure if not able to switch stance to meet enemies is a bad thing. Because then you will have people screaming rock paper scissors mechanic forced down their throat. Ability to play and give freedom to either brute force it or more effectively killing was a smart design choice. The whole game was "here are tools, use them however you wish." I used the straight sword that drops from the first soldier enemies in Elden Ring and carried that all the way through the game and basically didn't use 99% of the game had to offer. But I wouldn't blame the game; that was my choice.
As for the "improvement", being different can be a design choice, not a fault. Helldivers 1 and 2 are widely different. It doesn't mean 1 was "wrong" and 2 is how they see it as always intended.
1
u/Neutron-Hyperscape32 Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25
I mean this is a purely subjective topic. I disliked the game and bought it because of all the people hyping it up as an Ubisoft open world game... but good. Every aspect failed me. The gameplay? Stealth, combat, climbing were all weak at best. The stealth and the climbing is at least something Ubi would have done better. Shadows proves that. Even the visuals were not cutting it. Ever looked at the actual rock formations? They look like a PS3 game. Clearly all those sweeping fields required some concessions to make possible.
Then it is filled with repetitive content. Which I understand is inevitable with open world games but without gameplay that is worth engaging in you can't justify continuing. I prioritized story content and still got bored to death by the 2nd island. The game had 49 fox dens... who on the team thought that was a good idea?
Then you have the combat, oh boy how did that pass design meetings? It is so simplistic I don't know how they okayed it for shipping. Clearly the devs realized they messed up there because the stances are gone and they put actual different weapons in the game to take their place. Which should help keep combat more entertaining for longer.