https://store.steampowered.com/app/686810/Hell_Let_Loose/ WW2 squad based FPS with vehicles and territory capping mechanics. Reviews place it as a middle ground between Red Orchestra and Post Scriptum. Not as face paced and run and gun casual as Red Orchestra, but not as slow, plodding, tactical hardcore as Post Scriptum. Might be something that would interest a few of our squad based FPS players. I know a bunch of y'all here play Squad, ARMA, and other tactical shooters.
Looks great, but its still in early access. Also, I would be more comfortable getting it if I knew we had a consistent number of people who wanted to play such things. I still want to get a consistent thing going for Saturdays. Can you help with that? Perhaps "HeLL" would be worth putting on the community watch list for now?
Even though I'm someone who is really into games like these. Hell Let Lose have never really catched my interest. Primarily because I'm into Squad and Post Scriptum. Even though Post Scriptum was an absolute mess at release it was still more interesting for me then Hell Let Loose. At this point, Post Scriptum have improved alot giving me even less of a reason to switch. If I want to plays something faster paced then Post Scriptum, I would play Red Orchestra. I'm sure I would enjoy the game if I play it and if it's something everyone wants to play then I will pick it up. I would not pick it up on my own though. My prefered list already consist of Arma, Squad, Post Scriptum, Red Orchestra, Ready or Not and Ground Branch. Considering I don't even have time to play all of these. I'm not particularly interested in trying to do something with another game when I already own so many similar games.
So I bought Hell Let Loose. And it's definitely scratching that Battlefield itch I've had for a while, but have refused to scratch because I won't give Electronic Arts another penny. It's got that large scale Battlefield feel, but it's a lot more tactical than that without being overwhelmingly hardcore. It's also legitimately difficult, there's no run and gun way to success. You have to stick with your teammates or you'll die. I've only played the Rifleman class, but there's 14 classes to choose from each with their own little niche they fill in combat. I know a lot of Borg members prefer more hardcore shooters like ARMA and Post Scriptum. But as an old school Battlefield fan, this is the game I have been looking for since EA ruined Battlefield. So, if you're like me and also looking for a replacement for your Battlefield fix, this is the game for you. And, Magnus, it is in fact in Early Access, and I know that really grinds your gears, but it's incredibly well polished for an "Early Access Game." I've put 6 hours into it today, and I have experienced only a single crash, no graphical bugs, or anything remotely close to the things that plagued the most recent Battlefield games when they were supposedly "finished." I hesitate to even call this an early access game, because it's currently more polished, has less bugs, and has more classes, weapons, and maps than most "AAA Shooters" even release with.
Technically Early Access does not imply that it has to have bugs or unpolished features - it merely states that it's but version 0.x and on a roadmap to the eventual 1.0. Some teams and studios really, really struggle with getting anything to actually work properly, other teams tend to produce a lot more solid quality - so much so that some teams and some devs don't even really need much in the way of a separate QA going over their work because what they deliver is already polished. I could go on about development philosophies but I'll just leave it at this - some people have really bought into structures and philosophies that result in a lot of shitty solutions and a general throughout lack of quality and polishment. Ok, my rant is over. That said I like the 'hardcore feel' but I don't enjoy the actual hardcore work and thinking processes. That is to say, I like that a game has it's mechanics and rules designed so that it feels like that what works in real life works in the game, like moving as a team and so. What I don't like is when the manual is 5000 pages long and you have to know it all by heart in order to not get roflstomped by everyone else. It sounds like this is close to the sweet spot of 'feels legit and is still approachable'.
Generally speaking, I personally don't have a problem with games in Early Access. But as a community, we've been burned sooo many times with games in Early Access, that it is a bit of a non-starter conversation. What determines a Early Access game as "mostly finished" is a mostly subjective conversation. What can be said with certainty is if the developer thinks it is still in "Early Access", that tells me it is unfinished or at least subject to further changes. For me, it comes down to less about having a stigma for games in Early Access and more to do with having limited time: I am in absolutely no hurry to play an "unfinished" game when there are plenty of *actually* finished games I still have yet to play through. But if HeLL is everything you've been waiting for and more, I can certainly understand why you would feel the way you do. If I was in your shoes, I'd probably feel the same. To be fair, MW5 has barely scraped past what could be considered a "released state" and I still pre-ordered it knowing it was going to be a mess.
That's a really good summary of what a lot of people feel and where they are at in life. I mean wouldn't it be awesome to have the time and have your affairs in such an order that you could just buy into promising looking Early Access games and both support them financially and help them finish those games? That said, it's a special thing and it's not for everyone. Things to expect - the entire game mechanics will be revamped repeatedly. Savegame loss and incompatibilities. Very limited game in terms of depth, content and in general the quality. Where I stand now is that if I really absolutely want to support an Early Access game I would in general rather throw some money at them early on but probably wouldn't spend a lot of time playing the unfinished game. And then there is that very real issue that for some people if they get paid before finishing then they'll never finish, others will not get paid enough to finish and some may even have the company be able to raise the funds they need and all but experience their core staff getting poached by competitors which leaves the company and their game in crisis.
I mean this isn't really EA specific. EA is simply well known for failing to follow through and or pushing unwanted cash grabs on the developers while simultaneously forcing unrealistic deadlines on them. I will not be spending a dime on an unfinished EA game until the company shows that it has learned the lessons it's own history has crammed down our throats. Other companies/franchise I will play by ear, if I have money to spare I may throw it some way based on what I hope the game will be like, EA has pretty much burned that bridge, nuked the river it was crossing, and filled up the levy with toxic waste.
EA = Early Access, in this context, not Electronic Arts. Changed all the "EA's" to "Early Access" to clear up confusion. Hell Let Loose is not an Electronic Arts game. It is in Early Access, though.
To HeLL's credit, it does sound a bit more approachable than Post Scriptum, while still retaining some more realistic elements: Player numbers seem to be looking good too: https://steamcharts.com/app/686810 ^about 4x more than Post Scriptum To be completely honest, I was not at first enthusiastic about this game, because I thought it was just another game like Squad or Post Scriptum which both suffer from being generally very punishing to more casual players. As a community, we tried both of the latter and they didn't really sit well for many of us. I'm glad to see HeLL is not just "more of the same". The most immediate difference that stands out for me (besides higher player numbers) is that HeLL makes it MUCH easier to tell friend from foe. Man, what a difference that makes alone! This seems to be closer to that "sweet spot" between hardcore ARMA and twitchy-arcade Battlefield. That sounds great to me.
Yeah, HeLL is good about telling you if you're aiming at a friendly while also not making it easy to know where all your teammates are at any given time. You have to hover over the teammate in order for the icon to pop up, but it takes a second. So if you're not communicating and keeping track of your teammates who are around you, you can easily end up shooting one of them before the icon pops up. It's a good mix of warning you to prevent TKing, but still making it so you can easily TK if you're not communicating with the guys around you.
I will mark these things against HeLL, though. If you're in a squad with a bad Officer that doesn't drop spawn points, the game turns into a running simulator very quickly. And, if your team has a bad Commander that doesn't do things like spawn Armor for the team or call in airstrikes or Artillery, the match turns into a steamroll quite easily and it becomes pretty unfun to be on the receiving side of that. Though, these "problems" aren't really the games fault though as it can't really control bad players.
Yea, that is true. It's not the game's fault - the game just sets the bar that the players must exceed before the team can enjoy the match. It's another question if it's fun to be on the winning side when the other team is incompetent. There are ways to deal with dissatisfaction of being in incompetent casual crowd and so, not going to go at length with it but there are a number of mechanics and solutions for online games. Which has no consequence or relevance when it comes to HeLL or any specific game, really.
Dan Carlin is a semi-famous podcaster that talks about a lot of important moments in history. It just so happens he's also a avid wargaming fan and recently had an interview with the lead dev of HLL.
