Haha, I put in I don't know how many hours of Skyrim, FO3, and New Vegas on consoles. Honestly I got so efficient at it I never noticed how clunky it was. It became so ingrained that I would just sort of flow with it. I've also played pokemon pretty avidly all of my life, so clunky menus don't bother me like that, I guess. I can do it for hours and hours without cramping up. You can get pretty quick with it eventually - though you have to pay attention to economy of motion. I've also kinda taken a liking to playing non-competitive shooters with a controller. I thought I would go back to KB/mouse for everything when I got back into the PC side of gaming but it didn't happen that way. Something about actual triggers just feels really right. In loot-heavy games, I prefer it doubly, even if it is significantly slower... mostly because I'm such a spaz, I'll make myself dizzy and miss stuff darting the mouse around wildly.
I am certain I'm the minority there, though.
There may be something in the accessibility options for the button holds. I remember at least seeing them for the QTE's. Personally, I think the hold to loot mechanic is silly, even with a controller. Plenty of games don't use that mechanic and I don't recall ever having conflicts. If you're decently skilled with a modern controller, there's more than enough granularity to quickly target and grab stuff. So I do agree that is awkward. Stuff like that just has no place in a serious game, console or none. Better to make it an option for those who need it, for whatever reasons. *shrugs*
The 'slowness' I could take or leave. I really like the way movement is done, in general. You feel kind of awkward, like a dude in armor carrying 3 weapons and a bunch of shit ought to. I like how that presses you to think defensively and plan offensive moves carefully. It does wear on me sometimes, though. I keep the sensitivity pretty far up there and it still feels slow. And unfortunately turning it up further just cuts too much into granularity and makes aiming a chore. I've learned to just always "pop-in" from the hip before sighting. It's hard to get away with sighting up and looking around for targets. Good practice with shooters in general, but Exodus really insists upon it.
Worth mentioning, with earlier versions of the game, I swear looking and turning while slighted were twice as slow. I just remember it updating one day and suddenly it was like Artyom was on meth with me having cranked the sensitivity. So maybe they are making some improvements here and there.
The AI is... funny, yeah. I've seen all of the things you describe. Though oddly, I've had some playthroughs with no problems throughout the whole game. The AI is just magically better. And then there have been others with enemies walking off of towers and standing 30 feet in the air, clipping into stuff, and getting caught in loops 'searching' for paths. Mostly it was just a bit immersion-breaking, but sometimes it got really annoying. I'd be trying to take a fight to long-range combat and all of the enemies will barely engage... instead just jumping between 2-3 cover points endlessly - as if to say "nyeh nyeh! Can't hit me! Can't hit me!" And then, when the do pop out and shoot, the one-and-only shot from their peice of shit, bare Ashot will hit you right in the face - all from a distance where it is legitimately difficult to line-up a good shot with a fully-upgraded Valve. Oh god that was infuriating.
The blurry, washed out textures, I think I'm just used to in games at this point. I never mind, so long as things you get really close to are higher-res. Like, when you're climbing a ladder and the wall it's up against barely registers as a wall... that's a problem. I'm a bit more forgiving of it here because the visuals overall are very well-composed and the artistic quality in the textures is at least there. They're well-crafted even if their poorly optimized at times. I'd rather that than shitty, hacky 4k textures everywhere. Past a certain minimum, texture quality is a small part of the whole image quality equation for me.
Like... hm, here's where I'm coming from. The graphical presentation in a game is definitely very important to me. A AAA game should have it down better than games before it. I'm not talking visuals, here. Just on a purely technical level. But at the end of the day, all that matters to me is that it's good enough for the
visuals to shine through consistently and effectively. Which, imo they pulled off with Exodus. For me, it's got this immediate wow-factor that never really wears off... not because the graphics are next-level, but because for the most part they are done with care and compromises appear to be chosen such as to be able to convey a look and aesthetic that leaves an impression and draws you in. If it enables me to see compelling environments, I'm generally good with it. Like you, I'll nit-pick the graphics themselves to hell, which is why modding FO4 is an exercise in pure insanity for me. But I try not to let it keep me from taking in the things that the graphical techniques used are meant to portray. I see the issues, but all you have to do to get to my heart is make sure they're not completely pulling me out so I can look at how the level designs and environmental assets come together to make what's on the screen more than just a series of images. Compared to that, the graphics themselves are just a means to an end, if that makes sense. I'm not sure if I'm quite nailing-down the distinction, tbh. I guess I tend to draw a line between the graphics in themselves and the visuals they give rise to. I look closely at the techniques, but what I'm really hoping to see is a fully-manifested gestalt.
If you like the snow and ice, you'll really like the last chapter of the game. The whole thing will be nice eye candy for you. I know I really enjoyed it, anyway. They really went all in on that whole snowy, post-apocalyptic theme they have going for them. It's definitely what they're best at, by far.
But yeah, what you mention is the kind of stuff I was getting at when I said the technical side wasn't revolutionary. I think they try to implement so many well-established effects and graphical techniques that you see compromises you might not see in other games for it to run even halfway decent. Optimizing a game like this must be a nightmare. There's definitely some limit-pushing happening that holds back certain aspects of the graphical presentation. I'm okay with it, just because in the end when I step back and take it all in, the impact is better than that of most other games I've seen, even if it has problems that other games maybe don't as much. It still looks better to me, even if in some ways the graphics aren't always.
I think they're very valid criticisms. I can appreciate that mindset and often look at things the same, though I don't often talk about it (like, man, you think I ramble now?
)
I can't speak for the older installments because I haven't played them yet (and that's a
definite "yet.") All I know before Exodus is Stalker, which is so far back I struggle to draw comparisons. But if what you say is true then I'm right there with you. I can see where there are still things to work on as-is. I just also think that what they managed to do right is very, very good and really sets the game apart. There's enough there that I really appreciate for my mind to 'fill-in the blanks' where things could be better. I hope in the next installment they get some of the quirks worked-out, though. You say you hope you don't come off as negative. I say I hope I don't come off as being overly rosey!
And yeah, the game definitely favors the slow and steady approach. I very briefly played on the lower difficulties before moving up and having a much better time with it.
That's pretty much how I did it. The first time through I was too antsy to want to fully branch out... I felt like maybe I'd go too off track and fuck myself by going places I shouldn't be. Easier to plan diversions when you already know where the game ultimately wants to take you.
I actually appreciate that. The hub worlds are fairly linear, but they don't feel that way and things aren't too hand-holdey. Sometimes a character will say "hey, you should go over there first" but for the most part you have to determine for yourself what is valuable to pursue. It's like, you're on a bunch of little side quests without knowing it. The lack of a detailed map, navigation system, or any concise objectives lists makes it more of your own little journey and makes exploring a lot more rewarding, even when you don't find much. I always appreciate when open-world games diverge from that traditional RPG approach. It's just a lot more immersive when it's not made into this hardline, point-to-point affair, rather than plopping you into a central point in this huge, scattered world with all of these obvious POI's that the game takes you on a full tour of. Better when you don't really know what you're getting into or if its even worth it. For me that helps take down the barrier between self and player-character. I'm not exploring these places because the game tells me to - sometimes it almost seems like it doesn't want me to go certain places because they're hard to get to and you don't get much. But it doesn't matter... I'm doing it because I want to and I've decided there's value to that. You know? Not easy to do without everything becoming a chaotic wash.
on Nox for PC or on my phone 
