The learning curve is simply too steep, the risk/reward isn't clearly communicated before the choices made in the game, the smackdown which occurs due to things going badly seems to come out of nowhere rather than due to mistakes which the player made (and sees how to do better next time). The only people we are looking to for examples of "how to do it right" are playtesters with a zillion hours of gameplay under their belts, who are held up as examples of "how doable it is" (xwynns, joINrbs).
Gameplay isn't so much a matter of a "rich experience which can be solved in numerous ways" as it is a feeling of being corralled into stealthing the great majority of missions - and now I hear that's being "nerfed" with 1.3. Great.
Why do we play games? Because they're fun. What makes them fun? The feeling of euphoria which occurs when we successfully navigate and conquer a challenge that we felt was compelling, and feel that we have gained some mastery due to it.
- Successfully nagivate: Being able to know what to do, given the challenge before us. In LW2 we are presented with a multitude of minefields we can waltz our soldiers across to their doom, and the instant doom of our campaign, with complex and inscrutable hints as to which minefields are doable, and which aren't. Moreover in order to push the campaign forwards you MUST go across enough of these minefields, and at a rather good pace otherwise Advent wins. Good luck.
- Conquer a challenge: Sometimes LW2 expects you to evac out without having achieved the objective, we are told. Some missions aren't winnable. Back in LW1 it was understood that this was part of the deal, sure - however back then it felt like it was better balanced and made more sense somehow, when the mission fell apart and we needed to run. It felt like we'd been given a challenge which we did indeed screw up somehow and, had we played things right, would probably have been winnable. In LW2 the only missions I feel that way about still are the large-squad combat missions; I still feel that sense that when I lose one of those that it was truly a series of tactical mistakes on my part which made it occur, and the sense that I CAN conquer the challenge remains alive. The stealth missions however, which are the mainstay of missions now in LW2, feel like when things go well it was due to pure luck, and when they went poorly it was due to my not having had luck on my side. Earlier in the campaign when enemies weren't as punishing, sneaking around to the objective, hacking and then getting out felt like skill. Now midway through, when faceless and chryssalids sprint over and jump on my face the moment the hack occurs ... it simply isn't fun anymore. I basically look at the objective spot, see that it's swarming with crap, and realize that the only way I'm going to do the mission is if I'm blessed with luck ... and that I'll need to be lucky to even get that far. And no, it doesn't feel like skill (even though yes of course there is a skill in being patient enough to walk a path that has zero chance of being spotted, while still keeping the timer in check), it feels like luck. And pure luck just isn't fun. Luck COMBINED with skill is fun. Being unlucky and then having that unluckiness make a person have to be skillful to survive is great. Being unlucky and then swarmed and murdered without chance of survival isn't fun.
- Compelling: Lack of clarity on what the risk/reward is for a mission, so we can judge its worth (having to cross-reference various tables online sucks). Crappy loot sucks. Unclear how XP works, and how much we are getting for a particular mission. Unsure which missions are going to be ok to skip (see the cross-referencing above). Just simply feeling like the mission had some effect or ramification. Yes, yes, yes I know that "it's totally clear in the mission description" - and I'm talking about Guerilla Ops missions here mainly, rather than Golden Path or Supply Lines type stuff. Try asking someone who isn't in the LW2 Fanboy Club to look at the mission selection screen what the effect of the mission is going to be, based on the description, and take note of their response. Notice the silence and the confused look on their face. And then ask them "should you go on that mission?" I usually absolutely don't know whether a mission is important to go on, or is a distraction, or is worth it, based on the information given, so I generally try to go on every one that I can (just like I bet the vast majority of players are) and end up being punished for it. And sure, I get it that "the idea is you're supposed to choose which ones to go on" but the level of complexity, combined with the degree of inscrutability, plus the sheer volume of missions, is such that I haven't developed a solid sense of that after a few hundred hours of gameplay. This inability to discern the importance or effect of going on missions diminishes the compelling aspect of the "fun" equation.
- Gained some mastery: I do have a feeling of mastery in regard to combat-intensive mission types. I don't have a major issue with LW2 in the late Liberation, Golden Path, Defend type missions in this regard. Any stealth or small-team missions however I absolutely do not have a sense of "mastery" with. That is: I don't feel that I have more than a few repeatable lessons or behaviors learned which I can reliably apply to future missions, and they are very little help. In order to "be challenging" the Pavonis team appears to have gone about actively nerfing any so-called "game breaking" builds or approaches which would make stealth and small-team missions "too easy". Making the solution to problems a moving target which changes with each patch release while keeping the difficulty ratcheted up to a level which necessitates the highest level of gameplay in order to succeed is turning the mod into a sort of arms race between the player and the developer. I can only speculate as to why this is happening on the Pavonis end, but the bottom line is that it simply ends up not being fun on the player's end (oops - again: excepting the LW2 Inner Club). Allowing the players to find and keep tactics which usually work is perfectly fine, and is an integral part of the "fun" equation. The other part of the game which I don't feel I have a mastery of is the interrelation of Intel gathering/spending, squad size, chameleon suit/suppressors, activity level, vigilance, Advent strength in the zone, and expiration time. This is a murky and complex mess which at the moment doesn't offer much chance for mastery other than "put everyone in the haven on Intel, and fiddle with the soldier choosing/loadout until it looks like you'll get 100%". It feels like I'm fumbling around every time I encounter it, and I suspect it could all be streamlined WAAAAY down and be far more fun while still maintaining the core gameplay elements.