The bad tutorial at least has some narrative justification. It's just a filter for people who are already useful as shock troops with minimal training.

Not only does the bad tutorial have an in-universe justification; the ways in which it is bad are actually significant to the worldbuilding in multiple ways.

The missing information also encourages positive interactions among the community - newer players are expected to be missing lots of key information, so teaching them is a natural and encouraged element of gameplay.

I stopped playing the game awhile ago, but the tutorial always struck me as really clever.

I also think that the tutorial would be tedious if it went through too much of the mechanics. They show you the basics, the rest you pick up through trial and error.

aye. give me the 3 minute tutorial, not the 37 minute tutorial.

i want to play the game, like now, and i'll read the forums after i figure out that i'm missing something imporant

The tutorial is just fine - here's a gun, here's how you shoot it, here's how you call reinforcements, now go kill some bugs!

considering it still cost 40$ for a 2 year old game, i think they are way beyond the excuse of small team low budget trying to make cool stuff. They have receive shit tons of money and are way to late trying to optimise the game. When it came out it ran so pisspoor i shelved it for a long time. Trying it recently its only marginally better. its really poorly optimised, and blaming old tech is nonsense.

People make much more smooth and complex experiences in old engines.

You need to know your engine as a dev and dont cross its limits at the costs of user-experiences and then blame your tools....

The whole story about more data making load times better is utter rubbish. Its a sign of pisspoor resource management and usage. For the game they have, they should have realized a 130GB install is unacceptable. It's not like they have very elaborate environments. A lot of similar textures and structures everywhere.. its not like its some huge unique world like The Witcher or such games...

There is an astronomical amount of information available for free on how to optimise game engines, loads of books, articles, courses.

How much money do you think they have made so far?

"Arrowhead Game Studios' revenue saw a massive surge due to Helldivers 2, reporting around $100 million in turnover and $76 million in profit for the year leading up to mid-2025, significantly increasing its valuation and attracting a 15.75% investment from Tencent"

75 million in profit but can't figure out how to optimise a game engine. get out.

It costs $40 for a 2-year-old game because the market is bearing $40 for a 2-year-old game.

If anything, it's a testament to how good a job they've done making the game.

The most recent Battlefield released at $80. Arc Raiders released at $40 with a $20 deluxe edition upgrade. I think $40 for a game like Helldivers 2 is totally fair. It's a fun game, worth at least 4 to 8 hours of playtime.

> worth at least 4 to 8 hours of playtime.

Is that supposed to be praise?

It's a comment about cost-to-hourly-entertainment. eg: if in the general sense you're spending $5-$10 per hour of entertainment you're doing at least OK. I understand that a lot of books and video games can far exceed this, but it's just a general metric and a bit of a low bar to clear. (I have a LOT more hours into the game so from my perspective my $40 has paid quite well.)

Its also wrong. With 10 hours of helldivers 2 you havent seen much of the game at all.

I played it a bit after release and have 230 hours. I liked the game and it was worth my money.

Yeah, I meant "at least" 4-8 hours. Even if you get bored and give up after that, you've gotten your money's worth, in my opinion.

I have almost 270 hours in Helldivers 2 myself. Like any multiplayer game, it can expand to fill whatever amount of time you want to dedicate to it, and there's always something new to learn or try.

I would say until you are about level 60 there are a bunch of mechanics that you won't understand.

> Like any multiplayer game, it can expand to fill whatever amount of time you want to dedicate to it, and there's always something new to learn or try.

Generally at this point I normally do runs where I go full like gas, stun or full fire builds.

Ah sorry, I thought "at least" would carry this statement. I've played Helldivers for more than 250 hours personally.

For some reason, though, I tend to compare everything to movie theater tickets. In my head (though it's not true anymore), a movie ticket costs $8 and gives me 1 hour of entertainment. Thus anything that gives me more than 1 hour per $8 is a good deal.

$40 / 4 => $10/hr

$40 / 8 => $5/hr

Thus, I think Helldivers is a good deal for entertainment even if you only play it for under 10 hours.

Thanks, I get what you meant now. I've never liked this comparison because I don't find movie tickets a particularly good deal, but that might just be my upbringing.

I'm not sure what that is supposed to be - it's an online co op game, not a story-driven one like the 4-6 hour FPS games that was a norm at one point.

It's the kind of game where some people spend thousands of hours in, well worth the $40 to them.

What does the age of the game in years have to do with anything?

A fun game is a fun game.

Compared to the bigger gaming studios they are small. In fact they are not that much larger than the company I work for (not a game studio).

The fact it is un-optimised can be forgiven because the game has plenty of other positives so people like myself are willing to look over them.

I've got a few hundred hours in the game (I play for maybe an hour in the evening) and for £35 it was well worth the money.