An opinion you're probably all alone with?

[Mechalich]

You seem to focus on the word hype and ignore the rest of my (very short) post. It should be clear from the context that I meant infatuation or fanbase rather than short hype. I just don't really get it. It initially felt even like an actually good looking Kotor 3.

A good-looking Kotor 3 would be a big deal. Because Kotor and Kotor II were big deals (actually there was a Kotor 3, SWTOR, and it was a top 5 MMO for most of a decade). Mass Effect had the bonus that it had real time combat, which was innovative for RPGs at the time.

There's a fairly limited number of AAA single-player RPG titles, which is, in itself, one of the big reasons people are still talking about Mass Effect and it was able to release a highly successful 'Legendary Edition.' The market space is currently underserved for economic reasons (which was why ME3 tried to add multiplayer) which leads to people talking about old games. The same thing happens in the Fallout thread(s), people talk about the old games and largely ignore the current quasi-MMO offering (admittedly a deeply, deeply, flawed title). Mass Effect is further able to remain in the conversation because 'space' is underserved as a game setting compared to quasi-medieval fantasy or post-apocalyptic Earth and Mass Effect, while not particularly original, has an interesting galaxy that would be fun to explore more.

[Lord Raziere]

You seem to focus on the word hype and ignore the rest of my (very short) post. It should be clear from the context that I meant infatuation or fanbase rather than short hype. I just don't really get it. It initially felt even like an actually good looking Kotor 3.

I mean....kinda but its actually better than a Kotor 3, because its more casual than being a jedi by allowing the good protagonist to have an attitude that isn't literal ascetic monk, bad options that aren't stupid evil because you'll do your job of saving the galaxy doing them just being a jerk while you do it rather than randomly becoming a murderhobo for no reason. it created a new setting where each alien race has its own cultural and political depth and realism, with each member of that species treated as a person with their own agendas and goals, having a history with each other that makes sure none of them are clean in their morals without being evil, and each party member has good reasons for what they do and how they are relates to the settings history.

like a lot of the social and political issues in Mass effect are things I'd see a galaxy actually having in some shape or form: Krogan got near genocided for being too warlike and hard to put down otherwise but its still treated as an injustice, Asari are diplomatic and welcoming to everyone but also manipulative set in their ways due to how long they live and are found at the top even the most corrupt of power structures as well legitimate ones, Turians are disciplined and military-like but that also makes them rulebound and liable to shoot first, ask questions later as first contact with humans showed. Salarians are the galaxies scientists but live some of the shortest lives in the galaxy and not all of them are morally or ethically good scientists due to their short lives and wanting to get results, Quarians ran away from their robot uprising and just want their homeworld back but the robots themselves aren't actually evil and just wanted rights. Indeed most of the AIs that aren't Reapers are treated as either tragic they need to be killed due to the law, or like EDI where they prove that no, AI can actually work with people if you just don't treat them badly.

it takes all the sci-fi tropes you'd expect and gives them depth, treating them as actual problems and issues for that world to deal with, without it becoming grimdark, and not just excuses for the protagonist to shoot people. it does its own thing that you wouldn't get from Star Wars because if it was set in Kotor times, a lot of the alien issues would be long solved or moved past since during the Republic galactic society would be too cosmopolitan to have those issues, while droids being slaves is largely ignored in Star Wars and just treated as a background detail no one does anything about.

and Commander Shepard is some combination of a Star Trek captain and a Spartan II saving the galaxy through words as much as their bullets, with a crew of likable friendly aliens each their own professional skillset that all become Shepard's comrades forged in fire at the end of it, what isn't awesome about that?

[VoxRationis]

My unpopular opinion about Mass Effect is that I actually liked some of the distinguishing mechanical elements of ME1. I liked the cooling-limited guns and the way it gave us very familiar firearms while demonstrating ably how advanced they were beyond what is available in the 21st century (unlike you, Halo, what with your guns that, in 400 years of technological progress, only put a digital ammo count on an otherwise normal assault rifle). I liked how it linked lore and mechanics even when that was deleterious to game balance (such as having barrier- and shield-dependent characters suffer terribly against the Rachni on Noveria). I liked the skill tree and per-skill cooldown system that encouraged you to spread your skill points widely rather than just saving to buff Warp up as high as possible. I even liked some aspects of the Mako in that it demonstrated that not everything in the setting was balanced around four-man infantry fireteams. The player could be pitched into situations well out of their depth, forcing clever use of cover and abilities, by pitching them against a geth armature on foot, or else be given a short and joyful romp through infantry class opponents while in the Mako. (I won't defend everything about the Mako, of course; the topography of the sidequest planets was horrific, as was the Mako's handling.)

[Rynjin]

My unpopular opinion about Mass Effect is that I actually liked some of the distinguishing mechanical elements of ME1. I liked the cooling-limited guns and the way it gave us very familiar firearms while demonstrating ably how advanced they were beyond what is available in the 21st century (unlike you, Halo, what with your guns that, in 400 years of technological progress, only put a digital ammo count on an otherwise normal assault rifle).

Eh, don't fix what ain't broke. Ballistics weaponry are pure physics, after a certain point there's only so much you can improve on anything man-portable withour prohibitive expense.

Guns haven't changed a ton in the last century of progress, and I think it's perfectly realistic to expect that rifles and handguns will remain pretty recognizable 300-400 years in the future of our own reality as well.

The UNSC specced into the tech tree of "improve the man behind the gun, not the gun" and that's overall a more effective approach in a lot of ways. It's certainly what won the war for them in the end, so it's definitely justified in the script.

Not that I'm against "high tech" weaponry in sci-fi, but Halo is a MUCH harder sci-fi series than Mass Effect, and holding the two to the same standard is misguided IMO.

[Zombimode]

Not that I'm against "high tech" weaponry in sci-fi, but Halo is a MUCH harder sci-fi series than Mass Effect, and holding the two to the same standard is misguided IMO.

Are you from the Mirror Universe or do you meant this the other way arround?

And I agree that holding Halo to the same standard as Mass Effect is misguided. On setting is just one step away from the level of seriousness as WH40 - the other one is Mass Effect

[Rynjin]

Are you from the Mirror Universe or do you meant this the other way arround?

...No, I didn't. Mass Effect is a series with inadequately explained space wizard magic, eldritch monsters from deep within the time abyss, and all of the general trappings of a soft sci-fi space adventure, like Star Wars.

Halo is significantly more grounded, especially when it comes to the human technology. The only true out of context problem are The Flood, which are basically just a particularly virulent alien strain of cordyceps. Halo fits in generally with stories like the Honorverse and evokes similar overall themes.

Neither is "diamond hard" sci-fi, but Halo falls a hell of a lot closer to the hard end of the spectrum than Mass Effect.

[The_Snark]

Not that I'm against "high tech" weaponry in sci-fi, but Halo is a MUCH harder sci-fi series than Mass Effect...

Gosh, there's an opinion that belongs in this thread Not that I think Mass Effect is particularly hard as science fiction goes, mind you: it starts off with a hard sci-fi pitch where there's one thing that breaks the laws of physics as we know them - Element Zero and its titular mass-altering properties - and everything fantastical is derived from that in some way, but... it doesn't hold up very well even within that one game, and I think they'd pitched the idea before they even started on the sequels.

Anyway, without knowing a lot about Halo I would have ranked them about the same: firmly space-opera, sometimes tries to justify the wackier elements with technobabble, but fundamentally isn't about to let plausibility get in the way of having invincible zombie hiveminds or robotic eldritch horrors.

[Eldan]

I love Bioware RPGs but for some reason I never played ME 1 beyond its tutorial planet. From what I heard from a few fellow players it feels more like soap opera in space than a riveting RPG? But mechanically it is not enough shooter, and not enough RPG for me. Falls in that weird void in between you know?

I do NOT understand the hype about that series at all.

The soap opera parts are quite beloved. But then, don't all Bioware RPGs have them? How many romance options are there in the various Dragon Age games again?

And yes, the gameplay in ME1 really wasn't great. But the story, whether the interpersonal parts, the military SciFi or the occasional attempts at big idea SciFi worked quite well for me.

[VoxRationis]

Eh, don't fix what ain't broke. Ballistics weaponry are pure physics, after a certain point there's only so much you can improve on anything man-portable withour prohibitive expense.

Guns haven't changed a ton in the last century of progress, and I think it's perfectly realistic to expect that rifles and handguns will remain pretty recognizable 300-400 years in the future of our own reality as well.

The UNSC specced into the tech tree of "improve the man behind the gun, not the gun" and that's overall a more effective approach in a lot of ways. It's certainly what won the war for them in the end, so it's definitely justified in the script.

Not that I'm against "high tech" weaponry in sci-fi, but Halo is a MUCH harder sci-fi series than Mass Effect, and holding the two to the same standard is misguided IMO.

I mean, both Halo and Mass Effect are settings where one might expect to fight aliens who, between their own physiologies and their protective equipment, might take 60 rounds of assault rifle fire to kill, but ME1 thought, "Well, maybe we should work towards higher ammunition capacities," and Halo thought, "Well, we'll just assume our soldiers will kill something else and grab its gun before they run out of ammunition."

As for the hardness of the two settings, I'd say that, while Mass Effect is far from the hardest of sci-fi, any apparent hardness of Halo stems from its unwillingness to imagine technologies beyond that greatly beyond those available in the 21st century, which is kind of odd in a setting where humans have continued having an industrial society for 400 years beyond the present day. Weapons are basically akin to those in the present day. Ships have FTL and artificial gravity, but only because those things are necessary to portray scenes like the start of the first Halo game. Civil engineering is only as good as was available in the last 40 years of real life. Computers are less complex than that of the present day, unless they manage to jump to being talking characters, where they suddenly have the mental capacity of a snarky human with access to Wolfram Alpha.

[Mechalich]

I'm not sure it's relevant to compare the hardness of the two series, since they are very broadly different things. Mass Effect is a space fantasy. It has fantasy themes and plots, just set in a futuristic space context, same as Star Wars with which it shares much DNA. Halo is military sci-fi, it's interested in exploring a fictional conflict to provide insights into the overall nature of conflict and also to have a rollicking good time upholding a set of militarized values while doing so. It ends up being 'harder' on the Mohs scale (Mass Effect is probably a 1.5, Halo maybe a 2.4) simply because exploration of military conflict requires a certain level of consistency in determining the parameters of that conflict simply so that it can take place at all.

[Rynjin]

I mean, both Halo and Mass Effect are settings where one might expect to fight aliens who, between their own physiologies and their protective equipment, might take 60 rounds of assault rifle fire to kill, but ME1 thought, "Well, maybe we should work towards higher ammunition capacities," and Halo thought, "Well, we'll just assume our soldiers will kill something else and grab its gun before they run out of ammunition."

Halo thought "we've only been fighting humans with no particular ability to defend against this weaponry", so it worked just fine.

Then the aliens showed up completely out of nowhere, glassed a planet, and started a war.

Remember that the Spartans were not designed to fight the Covenant, they were made to quell a rebellion against the worldwide government that had been established in between the modern day and the present day of the setting. Personal forcefield technology was not a thing on Earth. NOTHING even hinted at the idea that humanity might have to prepare to fight aliens with vastly superior technology, given they'd already colonized multiple other habitable planets with zero contact.

The Covenant showed up and waged a ~30 year war against humanity, during which they didn't have much time to entirely evolve the capability of their weaponry, beyond adapting a few Covenant weapons to better fit human hands and reverse engineering how to manufacture some of them...but mass manufacturing was kind of hard to do given the entire planet (well, multiple planets) were under siege for the duration of the war.

More exotic weaponry (eg. railguns, previously vehicle weaponry) began to proliferate after the Human-Covenant War, using said reverse-engineered technology.

any apparent hardness of Halo stems from its unwillingness to imagine technologies beyond that greatly beyond those available in the 21st century, which is kind of odd in a setting where humans have continued having an industrial society for 400 years beyond the present day. Weapons are basically akin to those in the present day. Ships have FTL and artificial gravity, but only because those things are necessary to portray scenes like the start of the first Halo game. Civil engineering is only as good as was available in the last 40 years of real life. Computers are less complex than that of the present day, unless they manage to jump to being talking characters, where they suddenly have the mental capacity of a snarky human with access to Wolfram Alpha.

We'll have to wait and see which one will be closer to reality in 400 years, but personally I doubt it'll be Mass Effect. Not that it's likely to be Halo either, given I think it's long odds that we survive that long as an intact society, much less develop a world government.

[animorte]

Here’s my opinion: God of War was loads better than Red Dead Redemption 2.

It was still a great game though, sure.

Perhaps the experience of having played most of its predecessors and it just took such a powerful turn while staying true to the story.

(If you disagree, awesome! That’s completely expected and my opinion won’t change.)

[Theoboldi]

Freedom Planet's story mode was actually really well made and very enjoyable. And the same goes for its sequel.

[Eldan]

I'm not sure it's relevant to compare the hardness of the two series, since they are very broadly different things. Mass Effect is a space fantasy. It has fantasy themes and plots, just set in a futuristic space context, same as Star Wars with which it shares much DNA. Halo is military sci-fi, it's interested in exploring a fictional conflict to provide insights into the overall nature of conflict and also to have a rollicking good time upholding a set of militarized values while doing so. It ends up being 'harder' on the Mohs scale (Mass Effect is probably a 1.5, Halo maybe a 2.4) simply because exploration of military conflict requires a certain level of consistency in determining the parameters of that conflict simply so that it can take place at all.

At least ME1 tries to be reasonably hard and military SciFi. There's dozens of codex entries at least on things like watch schedules on ships, or how heat distribution works, or ammo capacities of the guns. Someone put a lot of thought into making all the systems work. Yes, they then threw in magic on top of it, but a lot of the setting is still more SciFi than fantasy.

[Zevox]

Here’s my opinion: God of War was loads better than Red Dead Redemption 2.

I think the only thing that seems strange about that is why you're comparing those two games specifically? They don't seem like they have anything in common. Granted, I haven't played RDR2 (or 1) out of disinterest, but the basic concept and genre are totally different, so I still feel pretty safe saying that.

[animorte]

I think the only thing that seems strange about that is why you're comparing those two games specifically? They don't seem like they have anything in common. Granted, I haven't played RDR2 (or 1) out of disinterest, but the basic concept and genre are totally different, so I still feel pretty safe saying that.

Specifically because Game of the Year award.

[LibraryOgre]

I'd just scrap the entire "Shep joins Cerberus" plot.

Which is part of what moving that part to ME1 helps... it's "Shep is in Cerberus" and then becomes "Cerberus, which always had a slightly bad reputation, has gone off the rails into crazy evil."

[warty goblin]

Which is part of what moving that part to ME1 helps... it's "Shep is in Cerberus" and then becomes "Cerberus, which always had a slightly bad reputation, has gone off the rails into crazy evil."

I'm not really sure why the series needs you to sojourn in the stupid evil but crazily well funded terrorist organization at all.

It doesn't really fit naturally with fighting the Reapers, that's pretty much standard heroic RPG stuff, no violent extremists neccessary. It doesn't fit with fun space adventure because, you know, you're working for grade A USDA certified jerkwads whom a lot of humans and literally all the aliens should pretty much hate on sight. It's a serious mismatch from the kinda hard sci-fi realpolitik feeling the series mostly stuck with elsewhere, since Cerberus has about as much grounding in discernable political reality as your average 1980s James Bond or Batman villain. You know, the kind who build like secret bases that are also fully submersible islands kind of nonsense.

Really it's just weird. Like, how did "hey guys, what if we make the player work for space terrorists?" not get instantly shot down at the writer's table?

[Eldan]

Mhm.

Here's a suggestion: give that plot to Miranda. She joins the team after defecting from Cerberus when she sees their plans.

[LibraryOgre]

Mhm.

Here's a suggestion: give that plot to Miranda. She joins the team after defecting from Cerberus when she sees their plans.

Exactly what I thought after reading warty goblin's response... Miranda (and maybe Milquetoast... I mean, Jacob) could easily have the "We once worked for Cerberus" or even, in the case of Miranda, a "I work for Cerberus" thread, without making Shep part of the problem.

[factotum]

It's a serious mismatch from the kinda hard sci-fi realpolitik feeling the series mostly stuck with elsewhere, since Cerberus has about as much grounding in discernable political reality as your average 1980s James Bond or Batman villain. You know, the kind who build like secret bases that are also fully submersible islands kind of nonsense.

Let's not forget that this outlawed terrorist organisation is also capable of bringing people back from the dead and building a bigger, better version of the Alliance's most advanced ship. I mean, seriously, that's like some terrorist organisation here on Earth building a better version of an Arleigh Burke destroyer, how the heck do they do such a thing? You need serious resources, know-how and manpower for that.

[Rodin]

Cerberus would have been better if they had been more closely tied to Earth's government and military. They aren't a terrorist organization, they're a faction that keeps a legitimate front (via the Illusive Man, who is a politician with that nickname) with a lot of shady connections and no morals. You can get proof of wrongdoing from certain elements of Cerberus, but the links never quite lead back to the Illusive Man. The massive military and funding don't come out of nowhere - these are regular military units and military contractors who have bought into the anti-alien rhetoic Cerberus espouses. The funding comes from wealthy donors on Earth.

Shepard working with Cerberus makes a lot more sense then - as a Spectre Shepard has broad authority to do what they want. Cerberus takes the Reaper threat seriously, along with the Collectors if you wish to include them. So Shepard works with them off and on while also doing missions for other groups. When the Illusive Man is revealed to be indoctrinated that becomes a big deal instead of the "Well, DUH" it was in ME3 - it reveals that Cerberus as an organization was being used as pawns, and helps justify how you can have more decent people as part of it.

You'd have to rewrite a lot of their more cartoonishly evil plans, but you could also write in more morally grey options to expand the Renegade character choices that always felt a bit neglected.

[Spore]

The soap opera parts are quite beloved. But then, don't all Bioware RPGs have them? How many romance options are there in the various Dragon Age games again?

I don't know but Zevran broke my tiny gay heart by offering what my horny teenage self wanted: quick sex. And then spent the following minute telling me how it was nothing and we should probably never talk about it. Cured me instantly from dating Bioware NPCs. (I also was Viconia's lapdog in BG 2 until I realized years later her romance actually requires you to be the dominant type in the dialogue).

But enough about my inability to flirt both ingame and out of game.

I might expect too much from non-parody games. Outer Worlds got away with so much poor stuff on their part but I heavily critique ME for minor flaws.

[Psyren]

I'm not really sure why the series needs you to sojourn in the stupid evil but crazily well funded terrorist organization at all.

It doesn't really fit naturally with fighting the Reapers, that's pretty much standard heroic RPG stuff, no violent extremists neccessary. It doesn't fit with fun space adventure because, you know, you're working for grade A USDA certified jerkwads whom a lot of humans and literally all the aliens should pretty much hate on sight. It's a serious mismatch from the kinda hard sci-fi realpolitik feeling the series mostly stuck with elsewhere, since Cerberus has about as much grounding in discernable political reality as your average 1980s James Bond or Batman villain. You know, the kind who build like secret bases that are also fully submersible islands kind of nonsense.

Really it's just weird. Like, how did "hey guys, what if we make the player work for space terrorists?" not get instantly shot down at the writer's table?

Yeah, ME2 is often looked at the most fondly of the trilogy but plotwise I view it as the weakest entry. It just so thoroughly knocks it out of the park with characterization and gameplay that people bend over backwards to overlook the very shaky premise.

Let's not forget that this outlawed terrorist organisation is also capable of bringing people back from the dead and building a bigger, better version of the Alliance's most advanced ship. I mean, seriously, that's like some terrorist organisation here on Earth building a better version of an Arleigh Burke destroyer, how the heck do they do such a thing? You need serious resources, know-how and manpower for that.

To be fair - when your resources, like ours in the current era, are limited to the raw materials and know-how of a single planet, pulling off such a feat in secret would indeed be farfetched. But when corporations and supply chains can span entire star systems, their ability to covertly replicate a single ship becomes a bit more believable.

Cerberus would have been better if they had been more closely tied to Earth's government and military. They aren't a terrorist organization, they're a faction that keeps a legitimate front (via the Illusive Man, who is a politician with that nickname) with a lot of shady connections and no morals. You can get proof of wrongdoing from certain elements of Cerberus, but the links never quite lead back to the Illusive Man. The massive military and funding don't come out of nowhere - these are regular military units and military contractors who have bought into the anti-alien rhetoic Cerberus espouses. The funding comes from wealthy donors on Earth.

Shepard working with Cerberus makes a lot more sense then - as a Spectre Shepard has broad authority to do what they want. Cerberus takes the Reaper threat seriously, along with the Collectors if you wish to include them. So Shepard works with them off and on while also doing missions for other groups. When the Illusive Man is revealed to be indoctrinated that becomes a big deal instead of the "Well, DUH" it was in ME3 - it reveals that Cerberus as an organization was being used as pawns, and helps justify how you can have more decent people as part of it.

You'd have to rewrite a lot of their more cartoonishly evil plans, but you could also write in more morally grey options to expand the Renegade character choices that always felt a bit neglected.

TIM isn't really a politician, he's more an ex-military private sector tycoon/plutocrat type. He has actual politicians on his payroll (some unknowingly) but holds no elected or appointed public office himself.

I agree that it's difficult to square their cartoonishly-evil side with their unfathomably well-connected side, but then, I have trouble understanding why Lex Luthor or Norman Osborn are able to stay as rich and powerful as they do too.

[warty goblin]

I might expect too much from non-parody games. Outer Worlds got away with so much poor stuff on their part but I heavily critique ME for minor flaws.

Well yeah, but Outer Worlds exudes a sort of 7/10 bland and safe mediocrity from it's every pixel. It's hard to be disappointed with the videogame equivalent of store brand Frosted Flakes Fallout 3. ME actually pushed the envelope, tried some stuff, and I think pulled most of it off pretty credibly. Pity the series dove right off a cliff after the first game.



Actual weird opinion: Elden Ring uses its reputation to cover up an uncreative and lazy design. Story? Don't need one, it's all vibes. Worldbuilding? Nope, vibes. New ideas? Nope, it's just Dark Souls in an open world. Difficulty settings? Please, either it's not actually that hard, or it doesn't need difficulty because you can grind, or you just need to get good, or if given the opportunity to choose Easy the fanbase would be unable to help themselves and ruin their own experience (I have been told all of these at various points). Actually explaining itself? Only exceedingly grudgingly, and not all that well.

You can see why Dark Souls is so influential. Just make your combat slow as mud, stick on a stamina bar just in case things weren't glacially slow enough, and suddenly you get out of doing all sorts of work other, lesser genres consider standard.

[veti]

Actual weird opinion: Elden Ring uses its reputation to cover up an uncreative and lazy design.

I have no dog in this fight, I've never played Elden Ring, but I have a question at this point:

How can a game, which is not part of a pre-existing franchise, "use its reputation" to cover up part of itself? How did it ever get a reputation for being something it's not?

[animorte]

I have no dog in this fight, I've never played Elden Ring, but I have a question at this point:

How can a game, which is not part of a pre-existing franchise, "use its reputation" to cover up part of itself? How did it ever get a reputation for being something it's not?

The game developer has the reputation. It’s their next installment.

I personally have zero interest whatsoever in the games of that nature. They have a reputation of being needlessly difficult. I can understand and appreciate a challenge. I like learning the enemy, but having little to no room for mistakes isn’t fun for me. I also just don’t have time to embrace that kind of challenge anymore.

[Rynjin]

Actual weird opinion: Elden Ring uses its reputation to cover up an uncreative and lazy design. Story? Don't need one, it's all vibes. Worldbuilding? Nope, vibes. New ideas? Nope, it's just Dark Souls in an open world. Difficulty settings? Please, either it's not actually that hard, or it doesn't need difficulty because you can grind, or you just need to get good, or if given the opportunity to choose Easy the fanbase would be unable to help themselves and ruin their own experience (I have been told all of these at various points). Actually explaining itself? Only exceedingly grudgingly, and not all that well.

You can see why Dark Souls is so influential. Just make your combat slow as mud, stick on a stamina bar just in case things weren't glacially slow enough, and suddenly you get out of doing all sorts of work other, lesser genres consider standard.

People like Soulslikes because they're one of the few "game focused" games left. It's not uncreative and lazy, it's actually a novelty in today's gaming industry where the focus in AAA titles is producing a better STORY rather than better gameplay.

It's the rare game that actually manages to do both exceptionally, which means sacrifices are made. And TBH I'm kind of tired of the sacrifice being "we make the game mediocre to focus on the plot". Just make a damn movie you clowns.

If you can do both well, sure. Make that masterpiece. I really enjoyed God of War 4, for instance.

But most don't end up as masterpieces. They end up as an assuredly good (sometimes even great) plot brought down by being a mediocre game.

The "difficulty" of the Souls series is overblown. It's just that it requires slightly better than basic mechanical competence to succeed. And that's something a lot of modern games lack. It's not uncommon to get through a game without a single death, because the game is just there to funnel you through the story, not to provide any level of challenge or satisfaction.

[The_Snark]

Let's not forget that this outlawed terrorist organisation is also capable of bringing people back from the dead...

After their body has undergone atmospheric re-entry, no less...

Okay, enough kvetching about Mass Effect 2 from me, this opinion is clearly pretty widespread here. Different one: I liked Homeworld 2's gameplay a lot more than the original Homeworld.

Don't get me wrong, I wanted to like Homeworld. The idea of a persistent campaign, where the resources and ships you have at the end of one mission are your starting fleet in the next, is neat, and it's a perfect fit for the story. But in practice, it made for a very unforgiving experience. If I struggled to beat level 6, not only would level 7 be harder as the game escalates in difficulty, I'll be handicapped by starting off with a very tattered fleet, and that problem only got worse with each level I just barely scraped through. Eventually, I realized that my best course of action would be to start over - or at least go back several levels - and replay from there, making sure that I wasn't just winning but winning decisively. Maybe that's an experience that appeals to some people - achievement hunting and speedrunning certainly suggest there's a market for it - but I'm not one of them. I like narrow victories, and I don't like replaying levels I've already beaten just so I can beat them harder.

(The other reason was salvage corvettes, which really bothered me. Hated the concept - why does a fully operational battleship become helpless when four little ships lock onto the side? Hated the execution, which fed into the problem I described above - if you're doing well, you can afford to use salvage corvettes to steal the best enemy ships and therefore win even harder, but if you're struggling then you probably can't defend them and your fleet will fall even further behind what the designers expect you to have. In theory, salvage corvettes are a fine idea, but they should be salvagers, not unstoppable ship thieves.)

Anyway. Homeworld 2 technically also has persistent ships and resources, but the enemy forces in the mission will scale up and down based on what you have, which more or less removes that aspect of it. I can understand why people who enjoyed that dynamic in the first game disliked the change, but for me it was the difference between finishing the game and giving up halfway through. (It also replaced salvage corvettes with marine frigates, which generally aren't worth using - also an improvement, to my mind.)

[Velaryon]

You can see why Dark Souls is so influential. Just make your combat slow as mud, stick on a stamina bar just in case things weren't glacially slow enough, and suddenly you get out of doing all sorts of work other, lesser genres consider standard.

I've never played Elden Ring (and plan to keep it that way), but I'm glad to see someone else call out the sluggish combat in Dark Souls. Artificially boosting the difficulty by making the controls slow to respond while requiring near-perfect timing is absolutely not my idea of fun.

The "difficulty" of the Souls series is overblown. It's just that it requires slightly better than basic mechanical competence to succeed. And that's something a lot of modern games lack. It's not uncommon to get through a game without a single death, because the game is just there to funnel you through the story, not to provide any level of challenge or satisfaction.

Hard disagree. I spent 2+ hours trying (and failing) to get past the tutorial boss in DS3. The series' reputation for difficulty is well deserved, even if the reason for said difficulty is sluggish controls.