What Is Wrong With Having Hard Challenging Content In Game These Days?

[MegaBabyRawr]

IDK about you, but going in level 30-50 missions with rank 15 weapons and rank 30 frame is hard as hell solo. Does goddamn ancients take so much bullets, even corpus crewman can take half a mag from my braton. and thats still not hard enough? you must be hacking

[Mutilar]

Protip: Defence mode caters to those awesome nolife nojob parentleech hardcore 18/7 gamers and also to casual scum.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Joshmaaaaaaan

[TheChaffeemancer]

Protip: Defence mode caters to those awesome nolife nojob parentleech hardcore 18/7 gamers and also to casual scum.

 

First off, cool generalizations, they make your points more valid!

 

Second off, they don't. They're dull as dirt if played optimally and don't actually require much skill.

[nakatotaiyou]

i want some more good challenging content too!

[Relkin]

I said that's what I'd like, not what's going to happen. But you make an interesting point here. So clearly it's about the reward rather than the challenge. Yet you guys whine so much about the lack of challenge. Huh. How odd.

But you are entitled - or at least, that's the way you come off. You want the game to cater to people like you or I - people who can reliably solo T3 void towers without much issue, without taking into account the casuals. Why should the top 1% of the playerbase be catered to over the majority?

It's about both - challenge is fun and all but you also want something to take back for it. They're not mutually exclusive you know....

Me? Entitled? Nope. Not caring for carebears != entitled. Also, 1% is a complete bullS#&$ number you just pulled out of your bum lol. The problem I have, is the where you can't have challenging content bc of the slugs that can't beat it loses their S#&$ then throw tantrums. It's essentially public schools - you all have to be taught at the same rate as the derpy kid sitting around with his hands in his pants.

[HomeyCDawg]

I always thought an easy solution until they get difficulty levels added would be to simply bump up the enemy levels spread on the maps. Level 1-2 is fine for M.Prime, but why are Pluto maps mostly level 35-50? By the time you get to Pluto, the enemies should be like level 60-80 at the beginning missions, and like level 80-100 by the boss mission.

 

If they evened the spread out among the planets based around that there would be an actual progression in difficulty throughout each planet instead of every mission from each planet being about the same difficulty, and progressing to the next planet would be an actual jump.

[Worira]

because "moar numbaerz" is not actual, interesting difficulty.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Worira

[DAWGUNITALPHA]

Because DE doesn't do "challenging" well. They rely almost solely on bullet sponge enemies and hitstun/stunlock along with no invincibility frames at all (even when players get freshly revived). That's not a challenge, it's annoying tedium.

[nakatotaiyou]

Notice how almost all the PVP criers are f2pers? Chances are, they'll leave this game in a month or two.

no founders package doesnt mean he plays for free, and he didnt suggest or cry for pvp, he said to bring more challenging pve content so the game does not need pvp to supplement challenge.

[Bakim0n0]

Are you saying that adding a PvP won't draw resources away from developing the PvE content or are you attempting to say that the PvE content development can take the loss of resources to develop PvP?

Did you not read that I specifically said now is not the time to develop pvp? I even quoted me saying it.

 

 

And for those who don't give a rat's arse about PvP would also rather see something that breaks up the monotony of the current PvE, end game mechanics/missions that add meat to the PvE which is currently lacking (as the current "end game" is just loot checks and grind). The people who are against PvP want to see something else made for the game and so they would suggest that if you want developed PvP, to look else where. It's a matter of where our priorities lie.

 

Which is why PvP shouldn't be the focus right now. But the point is continuing to go completely over your head. What you're doing would be akin to me saying if you want more fleshed out PvE to go play WoW.

You're trying to invalidate someone's opinion that this game could use PvP by saying it's not a PvP focused game. DUH, we all understand this, that wont change the fact that there are those of us who feel this game would benefit from it. You can go on and on about how the game doesn't have and isn't catering to pvp... it will never alter the opinion that the game could use it from those who want it.

Yes, I understand I am repeating myself... I thought I had already said this repeatedly but you don't seem to understand.

[TheChaffeemancer]

You're trying to invalidate someone's opinion that this game could use PvP by saying it's not a PvP focused game. DUH, we all understand this, that wont change the fact that there are those of us who feel this game would benefit from it. You can go on and on about how the game doesn't have and isn't catering to pvp... it will never alter the opinion that the game could use it from those who want it.

 

And you'll never alter the opinion of people who think that anything that could be devoted to PvP would be better used in other aspects. For all your going on about not getting someone's point, you're missing exactly that. The issue and disagreement of this is literally "Should Warframe have PvP? Y/N." You can say "I don't mean now, I mean eventually!"  and the answer would remain unchanged. This would be like if someone in World of Tanks was going "this game needs modern tanks." Most people would respond "No, it doesn't it's about WW2-Early Cold War era vehicles, go play another game if you want to drive an Abrams/Leopard/Tank of Choice here." Is there a market for this? Certainly, and you'd find people who will argue to death in favor of it, it also doesn't mean there won't be people dead against it.

 

The point is, those who don't want the future of the game to involve something (such as PvP) then they'll suggest that the player seek that feature in another game.

[Bakim0n0]

And you'll never alter the opinion of people who think that anything that could be devoted to PvP would be better used in other aspects. For all your going on about not getting someone's point, you're missing exactly that. The issue and disagreement of this is literally "Should Warframe have PvP? Y/N." You can say "I don't mean now, I mean eventually!"  and the answer would remain unchanged. This would be like if someone in World of Tanks was going "this game needs modern tanks." Most people would respond "No, it doesn't it's about WW2-Early Cold War era vehicles, go play another game if you want to drive an Abrams/Leopard/Tank of Choice here." Is there a market for this? Certainly, and you'd find people who will argue to death in favor of it, it also doesn't mean there won't be people dead against it.

 

The point is, those who don't want the future of the game to involve something (such as PvP) then they'll suggest that the player seek that feature in another game.

Ok, so if there is anything you want to be added in this game instead you should go find a game that has it instead of seeking to improve this game.

[Xylia]

U don't see casuals crying that they can't make it past wave 100 so why would they cry over any other hard content? 

All I saying is why is it that 99% of games made these days kept watered down for casuals when they can have both content for hardcore players who looking for challenges and casuals they do not have to do super hard content if they don't want to?

This is only reason why games likes these need PvP is because there will never be good challenging content in them as they will always be watered down for casuals.

 

Nothing wrong with it, If it is Optional.

 

Force the difficulty on people and you end up with a game like Dark Souls that only a few people play (IE, DE would go out of business).

 

OPTIONAL difficulty in a game is awesome. However, the game should also be casual too, for those who like the game, but don't like nail-biting gameplay. Some of us like to relax while gaming.

[Nod_Off]

Because it is in children's nature to want to put the least amount of effort toward the greatest rewards.... Ever see a kid ask to go mow lawns all summer for a fair wage? Nope. You see tons of children begging for free things though. 

 

Society = failed, so gaming has followed. 

 

I blame bad parenting. 

Edited June 7, 2013 by Zackai

[TheChaffeemancer]

Ok, so if there is anything you want to be added in this game instead you should go find a game that has it instead of seeking to improve this game.

 

If you wanted to be obtuse, confrontational, and make a great straw man with your interpretation, then yes!

[Bubsters]

Gaming industries nowadays try to make their games easy to pick up. They hope it'll appeal to a bigger crowd. 

 

Bigger crowd=moe munni.

[Mr.Monday]

One simple reason. More players = more money

You make the content too hard and you scare off the casuals.

[nakatotaiyou]

Nothing wrong with it, If it is Optional.

 

Force the difficulty on people and you end up with a game like Dark Souls that only a few people play (IE, DE would go out of business).

 

OPTIONAL difficulty in a game is awesome. However, the game should also be casual too, for those who like the game, but don't like nail-biting gameplay. Some of us like to relax while gaming.

dark souls did extremely well as far as profit goes to my knowledge.

[Nod_Off]

If you wanted to be obtuse, confrontational, and make a great straw man with your interpretation, then yes!

+1

[DAWGUNITALPHA]

dark souls did extremely well as far as profit goes to my knowledge.

Darksouls sold 2.4 million world-wide.

[nakatotaiyou]

Darksouls sold 2.4 million world-wide.

not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. but just sales numbers dont mean much, you have to think about how many resources they wasted for dark souls, when you compare that to their sales it did amazing.

[fatpig84]

PVP could be set on an arena or require you to be in a Clan to participate in a dojo and then subsequently in the arena for your clan.

There should absolutely be NO pking in a public game.

 

The last thing we need is people pking lowbies in M Prime.

[HomeyCDawg]

not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. but just sales numbers dont mean much, you have to think about how many resources they wasted for dark souls, when you compare that to their sales it did amazing.

 

2.4 million is good numbers by any publishers standards.

[Ryaneko]

so.. you are now on the point that its either hardcore gaming or casual? there cant be a game which does both? in my experience wow did a fairly good job to sustain a number of different people.. but i guess its too hard to implement some challenging bosses right meow with this pathing, sigh :(

[DAWGUNITALPHA]

2.4 million is good numbers by any publishers standards.

About average, these days, really.