An opinion you're probably all alone with?

[Rynjin]

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.

The controls aren't sluggish though, DS3 has the fastest and most forgiving roles in the franchise; hell, the iframes on them are forgiving compared to a lot of games, it's pathetically easy to dodge in DS3 compared to say Devil May Cry. It's just you never hit the base level of mechanical competence needed to beat Iudex Gundyr. That's not like a "you suck at video games" jab, it's probably just that the mechanics didn't gel with you.

I've played a few games like that, that everyone praises to high heaven but really didn't click with me mechanically. Bloodstained: Symphony of the Night (and to an extent, all 2D games of that nature) was pretty much impenetrable to me. I never did beat that game.

[Keltest]

Since we're on the topic anyway, in my opinion, Soulslikes are basically just enormous Quick Time Events interspaced with periods of smaller QTEs and walking. They've simply managed to disguise it better than most games do.

[Zevox]

The controls aren't sluggish though,

Now let's be fair here. Souls games themselves are rather sluggish, with clearly deliberately slow-paced animations compared to other action games, and pretty much every action is a committal one with no cancel options. Even if the controls themselves are perfectly responsive, that's going to lead to them feeling sluggish to people, because it's just the way the game's designed. Which is clearly the basic criticism Velaryon's getting at, and it's a fair one. If you want your action games quick and snappy, Dark Souls and its cousins probably aren't going to be for your, or at least they'll be less for you than a lot of other action games.

Which is one of the big reasons I'm only lukewarm on them, personally. I liked Dark Souls 1 and 2 just fine, and actually liked Sekiro a good deal more. But I don't really find myself wanting to play Dark Souls 3 despite enjoying its predecessors, and a big part of the reason why is just that there's plenty of other action games that I liked better due to how they handle their gameplay in comparison, so DS3 just winds up feeling very low priority compared to other games. And Elden Ring, just appearing to be Dark Souls but open-world, loses my interest entirely since it added the open-world part I'm not generally a fan of.

[Lord Raziere]

Hot take: Once a corporation starts getting it into their head to make a soulslike monetized live service battle royale game, it'll be even worse than any real soulslike.

[GloatingSwine]

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.)

The counterpoint is that Homeworld 2's dynamic difficulty generated a perverse incentive where it was better to scrap all or most of your fleet at the end of every mission so that you didn't get stomped at the start of the next one.

Keeping stuff between missions kinda always does this. I've recently replayed through Dark Crusade and you get pretty tired of the "honour guard rush the enemy to cripple them then sit on your ass building up the map" part of the game, because the correct thing to do is not to win until you've prepared the ground for an enemy counterattack which will be much more than a starter base can deal with without your faction leader and honour guard present (because the AI attacks with tier 2 bases ready to get tier 3).

It's a good idea in theory but you always have to work around the fact that once you have it the correct thing to do on every mission is "not win yet".

Putting selectable persistent growth in between missions as a response to things done in the missions is much better. (Which is why Wings of Liberty is the best RTS campaign).

[Rynjin]

Now let's be fair here. Souls games themselves are rather sluggish, with clearly deliberately slow-paced animations compared to other action games, and pretty much every action is a committal one with no cancel options. Even if the controls themselves are perfectly responsive, that's going to lead to them feeling sluggish to people, because it's just the way the game's designed. Which is clearly the basic criticism Velaryon's getting at, and it's a fair one. If you want your action games quick and snappy, Dark Souls and its cousins probably aren't going to be for your, or at least they'll be less for you than a lot of other action games.

Which is one of the big reasons I'm only lukewarm on them, personally. I liked Dark Souls 1 and 2 just fine, and actually liked Sekiro a good deal more. But I don't really find myself wanting to play Dark Souls 3 despite enjoying its predecessors, and a big part of the reason why is just that there's plenty of other action games that I liked better due to how they handle their gameplay in comparison, so DS3 just winds up feeling very low priority compared to other games. And Elden Ring, just appearing to be Dark Souls but open-world, loses my interest entirely since it added the open-world part I'm not generally a fan of.

Compared to 1 and 2, 3 moves at lightspeed, and Elden Ring borrows that same fluidity. DS3 medium rolls are similar in speed and efficiency to a max Adaptability Dark Souls 2 light roll. It's definitely not "sluggish" by any stretch, even if I'd agree with you that 1 and 2 very much can be.

[Mechalich]

The counterpoint is that Homeworld 2's dynamic difficulty generated a perverse incentive where it was better to scrap all or most of your fleet at the end of every mission so that you didn't get stomped at the start of the next one.

Keeping stuff between missions kinda always does this. I've recently replayed through Dark Crusade and you get pretty tired of the "honour guard rush the enemy to cripple them then sit on your ass building up the map" part of the game, because the correct thing to do is not to win until you've prepared the ground for an enemy counterattack which will be much more than a starter base can deal with without your faction leader and honour guard present (because the AI attacks with tier 2 bases ready to get tier 3).

It's a good idea in theory but you always have to work around the fact that once you have it the correct thing to do on every mission is "not win yet".

Putting selectable persistent growth in between missions as a response to things done in the missions is much better. (Which is why Wings of Liberty is the best RTS campaign).

It's also possible to cap between-mission carryover to some arbitrary maximum, which is what Homeworld: Cataclysm did. That does create the incentive to try and look ahead, but since junking a big chunk of your fleet and rebuilding it burned through resources there was a least some reason not to do that. Not a perfect solution to be sure, but I do find a lot of appeal in a campaign that doesn't require base-building from zero in practically every mission.

[Zevox]

Compared to 1 and 2, 3 moves at lightspeed, and Elden Ring borrows that same fluidity. DS3 medium rolls are similar in speed and efficiency to a max Adaptability Dark Souls 2 light roll. It's definitely not "sluggish" by any stretch, even if I'd agree with you that 1 and 2 very much can be.

Eh, checking some gameplay videos to compare, I'll give you that DS3 looks little faster, but it looks like you're exaggerating how much. Enemy attacks are still mostly big and telegraphed, and even with what are clearly the lighter weapons of the game the player attacks aren't exactly striking with the lightning speed of, say, Batman in the Akrham games or Bayonetta in her games. Quicker than DS1 and 2, sure, somewhat, but I still expect most people would probably feel the same about it overall as those games.

[Rodin]

My contention would be the word "sluggish". To me, that's code for "doesn't control well". And that's generally not the case with Souls games. Demons Souls has some issues with it due to the more limited control scheme and the game having a rougher design than its successors. Dark Souls 2 does feel sluggish, with more pronounced animation lock and input lag that have stopped me revisiting the game entirely even though it had a lot of interesting ideas.

The others are not. They aren't as dependent on twitch reflexes and APM like the other games cited in this thread, and the gameplay is deliberately slower. But they aren't sluggish - the character does what you tell them do when you tell them to do it, unless you've taken an action which deliberately locks you into in like swinging a large weapon or casting a spell.

Having gone back to revisit Sekiro, I actually find that I enjoy that style more than the more button-mashy combat of Sekiro or the Arkham games.

[Velaryon]

The controls aren't sluggish though, DS3 has the fastest and most forgiving roles in the franchise; hell, the iframes on them are forgiving compared to a lot of games, it's pathetically easy to dodge in DS3 compared to say Devil May Cry. It's just you never hit the base level of mechanical competence needed to beat Iudex Gundyr. That's not like a "you suck at video games" jab, it's probably just that the mechanics didn't gel with you.

There's not a single sentence in this entire thread that I disagree with more than than this. Devil May Cry's combat is a thousand times smoother and more intuitive than Dark Souls. I'm definitely no DMC prodigy, but avoiding attacks in that game is significantly easier than what I played of DS3, at least when it comes to bosses (regular enemies may be another story).

My contention would be the word "sluggish". To me, that's code for "doesn't control well". And that's generally not the case with Souls games. Demons Souls has some issues with it due to the more limited control scheme and the game having a rougher design than its successors. Dark Souls 2 does feel sluggish, with more pronounced animation lock and input lag that have stopped me revisiting the game entirely even though it had a lot of interesting ideas.

I meant exactly what I said.

[Rynjin]

There's not a single sentence in this entire thread that I disagree with more than than this. Devil May Cry's combat is a thousand times smoother and more intuitive than Dark Souls. I'm definitely no DMC prodigy, but avoiding attacks in that game is significantly easier than what I played of DS3, at least when it comes to bosses (regular enemies may be another story).

I'm going to be honest, this feels like entirely bias on your part. DMC has a pretty clunky dodging system, and I find it incredibly difficult to believe that someone finds it "more intuitive" to have to hold down a button, press a direction, and then press the dodge button than to just dodge in the direction you're moving.

[Zevox]

I'm going to be honest, this feels like entirely bias on your part. DMC has a pretty clunky dodging system, and I find it incredibly difficult to believe that someone finds it "more intuitive" to have to hold down a button, press a direction, and then press the dodge button than to just dodge in the direction you're moving.

What are you talking about? Basic dodging in Devil May Cry is just the jump button, because the series gives startup invincibility to jumps. For a more dedicated dodge, Dante has Trickster Style's dash, which is more what you expect from a dodge, except he's not rolling and it's faster than anything in a Souls game. Or, also with Trickster style or when playing Vergil, you have teleports that will also work.

[Lord Raziere]

I honestly don't think that a faster game like Devil May Cry is comparable to Dark Souls. their only commonality is that they swing the weapon when you press a button. they serve different tastes, that is all, and trying to look for one in the other is setting one self up for disappointment. But then again apparently I have more patience and willingness to throw myself at a boss until I get it right than most, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

[animorte]

But then again apparently I have more patience and willingness to throw myself at a boss until I get it right than most, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

My take on this is not the challenge at hand. I don’t mind learning how to get the fight or the level or whatever it may be. I’m just not fond of starting over literally every time I screw up. Having a little bit of room for error makes a big difference in my morale.

This is the same reason I don’t play 2d side scrolling type things. Dying from something unexpected just to start the level over 6 times is not fun for me. But if that’s your thing, by all means, have at it.

[Zevox]

I honestly don't think that a faster game like Devil May Cry is comparable to Dark Souls. their only commonality is that they swing the weapon when you press a button. they serve different tastes, that is all, and trying to look for one in the other is setting one self up for disappointment. But then again apparently I have more patience and willingness to throw myself at a boss until I get it right than most, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Yeah I don't think difficulty is really the difference between them. DMC1 and 3 were notoriously hard in their day, and for 4 and 5 I'd still say they're harder than Dark Souls if you turn the difficulty up. And personally, I'm also quite happy to take many tries against a boss to win, but it's a lot more fun doing that against something like the Vergil fights in DMC than it is against any Dark Souls boss for me. Out of Souls games I've played, only Sekiro's boss fights with Genichiro, Owl, and Isshin even come close to that kind of fun challenge for me.

[Rodin]

I wonder what the folks who don't like how the Souls game control think of a game that is the same pace, like Monster Hunter. Because that really is a difference of lethality - only endgame Elder Dragons in the Monster Hunter series really approach the deadliness of Souls bosses, which the MH games make up for by giving the monsters a much larger health pool and making healing more dangerous.

[Rynjin]

What are you talking about? Basic dodging in Devil May Cry is just the jump button, because the series gives startup invincibility to jumps. For a more dedicated dodge, Dante has Trickster Style's dash, which is more what you expect from a dodge, except he's not rolling and it's faster than anything in a Souls game. Or, also with Trickster style or when playing Vergil, you have teleports that will also work.

Somewhere along the line they ****ed the dodging up. I can't remember if it started in 4, or is new to 5, but in 5 you have to be locked onto an enemy (which is a hold, not a toggle), choose a direction, then mash jump. When unlocked you just jump. While it does have iframes, it is not the dedicated dodge, and I would in no way call "your jump has iframes" an intuitive factor in any case.

[Zevox]

Somewhere along the line they ****ed the dodging up. I can't remember if it started in 4, or is new to 5, but in 5 you have to be locked onto an enemy (which is a hold, not a toggle), choose a direction, then mash jump. When unlocked you just jump. While it does have iframes, it is not the dedicated dodge, and I would in no way call "your jump has iframes" an intuitive factor in any case.

There is a side-roll specifically if you do that, sure, but it's not the most important means of dodging in the game, which is simply jumping. And considering how DMC's mechanics work you're going to be locked on to an enemy 90+% of the time anyway, so that's hardly an issue.

And whether you think it's intuitive or not, that's how it works, and it's quite easy to use. Sure didn't take me long to figure out even when I was new to the series trying DMC1 for the very first time, either, even though that game certainly didn't explain it (couldn't tell you if later ones do, since I don't really need to read basic tutorials for things like that at this point). Pretty obvious that if you don't have a dedicated button just for doging, other mobility options are what you'd go to when trying to avoid an enemy attack, and jumping is the main one in the series, so most people will probably notice pretty quickly that jumping is effective at avoiding attacks in DMC, even if they don't realize it's because of it having startup invincibility.

[Rynjin]

There is a side-roll specifically if you do that, sure, but it's not the most important means of dodging in the game, which is simply jumping. And considering how DMC's mechanics work you're going to be locked on to an enemy 90+% of the time anyway, so that's hardly an issue.

And whether you think it's intuitive or not, that's how it works, and it's quite easy to use. Sure didn't take me long to figure out even when I was new to the series trying DMC1 for the very first time, either, even though that game certainly didn't explain it (couldn't tell you if later ones do, since I don't really need to read basic tutorials for things like that at this point). Pretty obvious that if you don't have a dedicated button just for dodging, other mobility options are what you'd go to when trying to avoid an enemy attack, and jumping is the main one in the series, so most people will probably notice pretty quickly that jumping is effective at avoiding attacks in DMC, even if they don't realize it's because of it having startup invincibility.

Okay, which doesn't really address the claim of "intuitiveness" being lacking in Dark Souls. Jumping into a vertical slash is a hell of a lot less intuitive than rolling to the side to avoid it.

It's also not really easier given the windups are shorter and the iframes much less forgiving for the most part.

I'd also expand this to DMC's combat not being overly intuitive at all. Like it's good, I love the series, but there's a reason DMC needs a combo list and Dark Souls doesn't. DMC plays close to a single player fighting game (when you're playing as Dante at least). There's not much intuitive about, say, having to lock onto an enemy and then quickly pressing back to forward on a stick and mashing the attack button to do some attacks. That's not something somebody just playing around with the controller to figure out how it works would ever do consistently without knowing how to do it.

Which is ultimately what "intuitiveness" means: can it be learned on the fly with minimal trial and error, and does it naturally flow from how a human being perceives the world?

DMC has lost a lot of that intuitiveness in its last couple of entries. It's probably my biggest gripe about 5. DMC 3 could just immediately toss you into a room of enemies and tell you "go ham". DMC 5 has too many hidden or obtuse mechanics to make that a viable option.

[Zevox]

Okay, which doesn't really address the claim of "intuitiveness" being lacking in Dark Souls.

For that one you're going to need to ask Velaryon. I jumped into this part of the conversation because your remark about dodging in DMC being "clunky" struck me as bizarre, not because I agree with Velaryon's statement.

It's also not really easier given the windups are shorter and the iframes much less forgiving for the most part.

I find that invincibility timing in DMC is significantly more natural and easier to work with than in Dark Souls, personally, but YYMV I guess. Probably has something to do with the fact that most everything in DMC can be canceled into jump/trickester dash/other such evasive options, so I can more readily react to the enemy while still doing other things, rather than needing to sit and wait for the right time to roll because I know it's been long enough since the enemy's last attack that another is probably coming too soon for me to get another hit in.

I'd also expand this to DMC's combat not being overly intuitive at all. Like it's good, I love the series, but there's a reason DMC needs a combo list and Dark Souls doesn't. DMC plays close to a single player fighting game (when you're playing as Dante at least). There's not much intuitive about, say, having to lock onto an enemy and then quickly pressing back to forward on a stick and mashing the attack button to do some attacks. That's not something somebody just playing around with the controller to figure out how it works would ever do consistently without knowing how to do it.

Which is ultimately what "intuitiveness" means: can it be learned on the fly with minimal trial and error, and does it naturally flow from how a human being perceives the world?

DMC has lost a lot of that intuitiveness in its last couple of entries. It's probably my biggest gripe about 5. DMC 3 could just immediately toss you into a room of enemies and tell you "go ham". DMC 5 has too many hidden or obtuse mechanics to make that a viable option.

There's not a heck of a lot of base mechanical difference between DMC3 and 5 though? Aside from Sin Devil Trigger - which is practically the definition of "just go ham," unless you want to do the stylish option of employing quadruple-S to use it briefly without actually expending its meter - the only major addition to it was the very input you mentioned, which is used for only a few moves, and it's not like you need those specific moves to beat the game, they're just additional options. Other than that, attacks and options all generally work as they in DMC3 - if not in specific moves that Dante has, since his weapons are quite different, at least in how you perform them. I guess Dante gained the ability to change styles on the fly after DMC3, but that's hardly unintuitive, it's just pushing the d-pad.

Unless we're talking specifically about V, in which case, yeah, he's annoyingly difficult to use, no arguments there. But he's only a thankfully small part of the game, with IIRC only three missions where he's the sole character option.

[Rynjin]

There's not a heck of a lot of base mechanical difference between DMC3 and 5 though? Aside from Sin Devil Trigger - which is practically the definition of "just go ham," unless you want to do the stylish option of employing quadruple-S to use it briefly without actually expending its meter - the only major addition to it was the very input you mentioned, which is used for only a few moves, and it's not like you need those specific moves to beat the game, they're just additional options. Other than that, attacks and options all generally work as they in DMC3 - if not in specific moves that Dante has, since his weapons are quite different, at least in how you perform them. I guess Dante gained the ability to change styles on the fly after DMC3, but that's hardly unintuitive, it's just pushing the d-pad.

Unless we're talking specifically about V, in which case, yeah, he's annoyingly difficult to use, no arguments there. But he's only a thankfully small part of the game, with IIRC only three missions where he's the sole character option.

The big offender for me is actually Nero. I like how Nero plays, but there's a reason he's the most "tutorialized" character, as he actively has mechanics that will **** the player if they hit the wrong button while experimenting.

I ran into this a lot trying to jump into higher difficulties after not playing the game for over a year lol.

[Zevox]

The big offender for me is actually Nero. I like how Nero plays, but there's a reason he's the most "tutorialized" character, as he actively has mechanics that will **** the player if they hit the wrong button while experimenting.

I ran into this a lot trying to jump into higher difficulties after not playing the game for over a year lol.

I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to there? His sword revving ability? Can't remember any scenario where that's a downside. His mechanical arms? Them breaking could be an issue I guess, but they're not really necessary - heaven knows I haven't often made that much use of them, even though I've tried at times, simply because I often forget to even consider them while I'm fighting. And everything else he has is pretty normal for the series, sword moves and his gun.

[LaZodiac]

I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to there? His sword revving ability? Can't remember any scenario where that's a downside. His mechanical arms? Them breaking could be an issue I guess, but they're not really necessary - heaven knows I haven't often made that much use of them, even though I've tried at times, simply because I often forget to even consider them while I'm fighting. And everything else he has is pretty normal for the series, sword moves and his gun.

His demon-arms feel kinda vital and there is a button that just instantly explodes it. Balancing both the demon-arms, the sword revving, and all the typical DMC style combat is genuinely quite tricky imho. V (and especially Dante, who I loved playing as the most) are so much easier to handle.

[Zevox]

His demon-arms feel kinda vital and there is a button that just instantly explodes it. Balancing both the demon-arms, the sword revving, and all the typical DMC style combat is genuinely quite tricky imho. V (and especially Dante, who I loved playing as the most) are so much easier to handle.

You have to hold down the button for a while to get the move that causes the arm to explode when used, it's not something you should be getting accidentally. And like the arms, the sword revving is definitely optional. I didn't use that at all when I played DMC4 because I didn't understand how it worked. I finally tinkered with it and got okay with it in DMC5 - not great, but enough that I was using it - and that was more than enough for me to beat the game on Dante Must Die. It's basically just extra damage if you can do it well, that's all.

And I can't agree with Nero being harder to play than V, at all. V's weird puppet-master style is a completely foreign concept compared to every other DMC character, where Nero you can absolutely play much like Dante, just with only a variant sword moveset instead of the full arsenal of weapons. Heck, on that note I'd say Dante is also more complicated than Nero unless you're sticking to just a single weapon most of the time, since then you have to remember entire movesets for multiple weapons, which is inherently more complicated than Nero's few extra options beyond his main sword moveset.

[Rynjin]

You have to hold down the button for a while to get the move that causes the arm to explode when used, it's not something you should be getting accidentally. And like the arms, the sword revving is definitely optional. I didn't use that at all when I played DMC4 because I didn't understand how it worked. I finally tinkered with it and got okay with it in DMC5 - not great, but enough that I was using it - and that was more than enough for me to beat the game on Dante Must Die. It's basically just extra damage if you can do it well, that's all.

Which kind of illustrates my point in a nutshell. You "didn't understand how it worked". I didn't either, throughout the entirety of 4 and honestly much of 5. All I knew in terms of revving was "Tomboy good".

And I can't agree with Nero being harder to play than V, at all. V's weird puppet-master style is a completely foreign concept compared to every other DMC character, where Nero you can absolutely play much like Dante, just with only a variant sword moveset instead of the full arsenal of weapons. Heck, on that note I'd say Dante is also more complicated than Nero unless you're sticking to just a single weapon most of the time, since then you have to remember entire movesets for multiple weapons, which is inherently more complicated than Nero's few extra options beyond his main sword moveset.

Eh, most of Dante's swords share the same button presses for similar types of moves (eg. launchers are always on similar button presses), which I think is very good design.

V, while weird, is braindead easy. I just mashed buttons and got S ranks the entirety of Devil Hunter mode with V.

[LaZodiac]

You have to hold down the button for a while to get the move that causes the arm to explode when used, it's not something you should be getting accidentally. And like the arms, the sword revving is definitely optional. I didn't use that at all when I played DMC4 because I didn't understand how it worked. I finally tinkered with it and got okay with it in DMC5 - not great, but enough that I was using it - and that was more than enough for me to beat the game on Dante Must Die. It's basically just extra damage if you can do it well, that's all.

And I can't agree with Nero being harder to play than V, at all. V's weird puppet-master style is a completely foreign concept compared to every other DMC character, where Nero you can absolutely play much like Dante, just with only a variant sword moveset instead of the full arsenal of weapons. Heck, on that note I'd say Dante is also more complicated than Nero unless you're sticking to just a single weapon most of the time, since then you have to remember entire movesets for multiple weapons, which is inherently more complicated than Nero's few extra options beyond his main sword moveset.

DMC5 is really a great example of how people have trouble with different things, because like Rynjin I had basically no problem with V's gameplay at all, and using Dante and weaving in his various weapons was easy for me.

[Zevox]

Which kind of illustrates my point in a nutshell. You "didn't understand how it worked". I didn't either, throughout the entirety of 4 and honestly much of 5. All I knew in terms of revving was "Tomboy good".

My not understanding how it worked in 4 is down to that game explaining it poorly - and again, it didn't hinder me at all, it was just an extra option I wasn't using.

Eh, most of Dante's swords share the same button presses for similar types of moves (eg. launchers are always on similar button presses), which I think is very good design.

There's extremely broad similarities like that in some cases, sure, though even that's not universal (Balrog doesn't have a back+attack launcher, for instance), and there's very important differences from weapon to weapon (you're going to be very disappointed if you try to use King Cerberus' Crystal "launcher" like you would High Time, since it's not jump cancelable).

V, while weird, is braindead easy. I just mashed buttons and got S ranks the entirety of Devil Hunter mode with V.

I'd say that speaks more to Devil Hunter being a fairly easy difficulty than V being easy to use, personally.

DMC5 is really a great example of how people have trouble with different things, because like Rynjin I had basically no problem with V's gameplay at all, and using Dante and weaving in his various weapons was easy for me.

To be clear, I'm not saying that I had problems with Dante's gameplay (though I certainly did with V's), I'm basically saying that I think Nero is the easiest character in DMC5 to pick up, because he has the least complicating factors. Learn to use his sword moveset effectively and you're pretty much good, the revving for bonus damage and mechanical arms are optional bonuses. And even if you want to use everything, just learning the sword moveset already gets you most of the way there, which isn't the case for Dante.

[Rynjin]

My not understanding how it worked in 4 is down to that game explaining it poorly - and again, it didn't hinder me at all, it was just an extra option I wasn't using.

The game not explaining it properly and you being unable to figure it out on your own is kind of the literal definition of "unintuitive".

[Zevox]

The game not explaining it properly and you being unable to figure it out on your own is kind of the literal definition of "unintuitive".

Sure, but now you're talking about Nero's sword revving mechanic, which isn't the thing that I took issue with you calling unintuitive (or clunky, more accurately, if you go back to the remark I was first responding to), so I don't know what point you're going for with that.

[The_Snark]

The counterpoint is that Homeworld 2's dynamic difficulty generated a perverse incentive where it was better to scrap all or most of your fleet at the end of every mission so that you didn't get stomped at the start of the next one.

Keeping stuff between missions kinda always does this. I've recently replayed through Dark Crusade and you get pretty tired of the "honour guard rush the enemy to cripple them then sit on your ass building up the map" part of the game, because the correct thing to do is not to win until you've prepared the ground for an enemy counterattack which will be much more than a starter base can deal with without your faction leader and honour guard present (because the AI attacks with tier 2 bases ready to get tier 3).

It's a good idea in theory but you always have to work around the fact that once you have it the correct thing to do on every mission is "not win yet".

Putting selectable persistent growth in between missions as a response to things done in the missions is much better. (Which is why Wings of Liberty is the best RTS campaign).

Yeah, that makes sense. I never bothered doing any of that when floundering through Homeworld 2's campaign, but I was very far from playing optimally; I kept failing to notice when I had access to new ship classes, which resulted in a couple levels being significantly more challenging (defending against enemy battleships when the largest you have is a frigate? Tricky!) and also didn't realize you could issue orders while paused until after I'd finished.

I don't remember what Deserts of Kharak did with their campaign. I'm pretty sure it had some persistent progression - both the fleet, and of the upgrades to your carrier, which works more like the last thing you mention - but I'm not sure how they handled it, and there doesn't seem to be much discussion of it online.