Board Thread:Plants vs. Zombies 2/@comment-24843074-20161207133938/@comment-24024415-20161210190516

TheGollddMAN wrote: Legofan9o5 wrote: TheGollddMAN wrote: Legofan9o5 wrote: TheGollddMAN wrote:

We all know that balancing/nerfing the zombies would have done the trick but no, they opted not to. So since they are not going to do that now...

Whatever they chose here, ultimately in this PLS system. it is a benefit and that's what matters in the end, whether fair or not. If they would have wanted to, they would have done it by now. ...if they did then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. I am saying I should be able to reach a higher value than just 212 because that's when the game starts becoming unfair and shows bollocks at you. I do care about both parts of the game but the main game is too meta for PLS and the EZ needs it.

But since I have already cleared the main adventure, there is no reason for me to go through it again and thus choosing the EZ is a better option... So in short, you guys missed out your turn to complain about how unbalanced the zombies were while bickering about how "OP" the plants were (which they really weren't at that time). Good job.

So make two profiles then. One for fully upgraded plants and one for normal gameplay. Has that ever occured to you instead of "cutting the game in half"? Has that ever occured to anyone who's complaining about breaking gameplay? Well sitting on hindsight does give you a good view on the past. We had no idea on how effective our greivances were, clearly some were more successful than others. What I'm tring to say: Don't be smug that we failed to predict the future, hindsight is a good tool for analysis but can lead to beliefes that people at the time were idiots, which is just unfair given the circumstances.

Profiles do not excuse how this system is splitting a game when a single profile was enough before. Let me give an example of how a permanent change and multiple saves could be done right: Stick Ranger. A simple RPG flash game with 8 classes chosen at the beginning of the game, all having dynamics of their own. You could have as many accounts and game saves as you wanted, but there was a clear element that PvZ2's PLS forgets: accessibility and replayability.

You could have any team setup and have all the content of the game, regardless of which permanent side you chose, and leads to many fun or formal loadouts to try and have fun with. The app-version even makes this easier, having 4 profiles to use and to progress at any time, allowing for quick bursts of "Hmm, I want to play with a ranged team. Yeah! Now a melee tank team..." and so on. It works because your choices makes some elements harder or easier, but does not prevent you from doing all the aspects of the game to your own content. Yes, some teams are better for overall play and some are better for PvP and one could devote files just for those aspects, but why cripple half of your profiles when you could have both the casual AND professional experiences, regardless of what side you choose to pick?

PvZ2 is just not as rewarding for second playthroughs, typically devolving to retracing one's steps on harder levels and for what, so I can have both the EZ and normal play? That's just poor, as other games have shown to allow for both options without repercussion, having the beginning of games become quick and easy to the person in repeat playthroughs. PvZ2 is slow and plodding, having to go through so many of the same worlds not out of creativity but out of necessity. There's just too much fluff content to justify going through it all again to have both sides. It's just a cumbersome system, but more tragically it is alienating casual players. The choice is mine, but why does the system favor only the other side of the game?