The main point I am trying to make here is that the mode should be accessible to more people. Given the fact I have not actually played the Generals mode, (and so have an extremely limited knowledge of how it works) I shall reserve any suggestions. I think this would be good, although I am not fully sure how it will be done. In a recent devstream, the developers (reto.moto) said they were thinking about making actual Generals more accessible (especially to new players). It looks pretty in-depth and intriguing, and thus a shame to be so hard to reach and experience. I am not sure if this is a recent image or not (I got it from a third party source). Still, it seems weird that what is supposedly half the game consists of what is in actuality only 10-20%. The developers also focus most of their attention in updates to the FPS side of the game, which is probably for the best.
The RTS side of the game is accessible (albeit in a limited manner) from rank 12 onwards. This issue is a very minor one in the scale of things. I understand that the game is free-to-play, and therefore actions need to be taken by the developers to make the game profitable, but to lock off what is assumedly half the game to 95% of all players seems counter-intuitive, as well as inefficient. I have played nearly three hundred hours in total over the course of a number of years, and I have yet to experience the ‘Generals’ side of the game.
This is where the game’s first problem appears. The post is arranged into subheadings, because you’d probably get lost if it wasn’t. The problems that would have the greatest impact if they were to go away. If you want some form of TL:DR, look to the end of the post – there I outline the four or so most important problems with the game as it stands right now. That is because I am purposely leaving out most of the things I like in favour of pointing out the flaws. So it may sound like I am being one-sided. So my intention for this post is to highlight the issues with the game. While I am sure it would be nice to list all the things I like, it would not be as useful as constructive criticisms. As I say, this post is focused on what needs to be addressed in the game. Cooperating with a team, communicating to spot enemies and focusing on objectives are all very rewarding. Most of the issues I point out are admittedly minor ones. “How the hell,” must you ask, “do you still play this game if there are that many problems?” Well the answer is that it is still a fun game. I have tried to use images in a sightly different way to normal. At any rate, I have experimented a little bit with the general layout of the post. I most probably should have done this over a series, instead of one super-post.
If you needed any more indication of my need for better things to do with my time, here you have it. In fact, it has become literally dissertation length. If you were wondering, yes this is a long post. That is not stopping me from pointing out the things I noticed that do not seem to exactly work as intended – or things that simply need to be improved upon. I am also fairly most of the things I point out will or have been addressed by developers, the players, or both. That is, for every problem, I will hopefully indicate a solution. Now I intend for this post to be constructive. You can also choose not to involve yourself in trivial matters such as an all-out war for Europe, and just fight in ‘Skirmish’ mode, with no stakes beyond each self-contained match. You fight and contribute to an overall war effort – that is, the Generals are the ones playing the RTS side of the game, while the Heroes are the soldiers on the ground fighting it out. H&G is essentially a Battlefield-Planetside cross-between that is supposed to be a hybrid of FPS and RTS. There is, in many ways, a depth to the game seldom achieved by other first person shooters. Despite everything (and all the problems I will talk about below) I do keep coming back to it, and often, I find myself having great fun. Heroes & Generals (H&G) is a game I have a very much love-hate affair with.
0 kommentar(er)
