I care about the Armored Core series. It is my favourite video game series and I have many opinions concerning it, especially the latest release, Armored Core Verdict Day.
1. I think that the newer games lead to a pervasive meta and I hate that. In particular, attacks being ineffective when corresponding defence on an opponent is higher leads to the rapid uptake of builds that have good combinations of defences, higher than typical attacks. The evidence is clear when you look at the leaderboards and discover strings of players all using the same build. The idea was, I assume, to force players to work as a team to cover all defences by limiting defences for individual ACs, and also by locking defence types to leg types (so for example, where in previous games you might have different quad legs catering to different defences, in ACVD all quad legs are only strong in one specific defence). It doesn't work like that. Players need ACs that will work on their own. And that's what I see online. Teams of individually well-rounded, safe dual BR dual rifle heavies/meavies, or other individually strong builds.
2. Part variety needs to increase, and fake part variety needs to go. By fake part variety I mean the practise of making parts that are basically all-round inferior to other parts in the same category. More of a nitpick but a bugbear of mine is that within categories, there are several parts that essentially look the same with some minor differences. This is psychological stagnation as players go for the more advanced parts and happens to correspond with a lack of stat variety.
3. Speaking of which, there are hardly any fucking stats to consider for many categories of parts, and with what stats there are, FROM Software is completely inept at varying them. Instead of making pulse gun A lighter but shittier in every way than pulse gun B, perhaps increase the pellet count and ammo and decrease the drain and range, meaning you have two different weapons instead of the weapon you should obviously use and the weapon nobody touches. Continue to do this for 5-6 weapons with unique part models and voila no complaints from me.
4. NPC interaction is DRASTICALLY underutilised. Even worse in the most recent games, but never that great, and with a little cost and effort, could be improved so fucking much I can't believe they don't do it. For a start, have NPCs do things while the game progresses, and have those things impact the storyline, even if only in a scripted way. But have the player able to take on any of the 'arena' missions at any time, and depending on the timing, events change. If you take everyone out immediately for cash, nothing interesting happens and you get no wingmen. Otherwise, NPCs could show up as enemies or allies, form company alliances, have sidemissions when you sortie with them enough. Also, if you're part of a large movement, for fuck's sakes SHOW US THE REST OF THE FACTION. In ACV you were part of a 'resistance', but you literally did not see a single other member the whole time. 4 voices on the phone, and you were informed that an entire army was waging war on your behalf while you were in a mission seeing nothing in the same area except fireworks in the background. Not even comms chatter.
Also, bring back NPCs changing their ACs over time. Also, have NPCs comment on your AC when you begin a mission with them, e.g. if you're both tanks they might say "Ha...and I thought we were a dying breed." If you have a sniper quad they might say "Don't point that thing at me" or "Good to see someone got long range covered" or "What are you doing? You'll miss out on all the fun" - with different lines for different characters. In fact, a good effort of this last suggestion ALONE would make the experience 10 times better for me. Except they're trying to gear the game more towards online than off,
5. WHICH IS A FUCKING STUPID IDEA IN MY OPINION. The single player of Armored Core has always been great, and doesn't need to be compromised for the constant territory team stuff. They can coexist. I like being in a team and doing team battles, but the extent to which the single player has suffered both content-wise and structurally to accomodate it is unnecessary.
6. Also go back to companies' infighting being the plot. I like the exceptional pilot evolution pulveriser stuff, but it has always been the final move after a game of undertones and companies fighting amongst themselves. Distinct companies making themed parts with naming systems, with affiliated NPCs and bases, which hire you for contracts. The 'factions' of ACVD are bullshit, they're just three generic groups all buying parts from the mysterious group that develops the parts. They have no individuality, there is no company-specific briefing, working for one is no different from working for another and they all have the memory of a goldfish. I would change this too, making company variety like we saw in ACfA, several companies all vying for power, except I'd go further, with company affiliation possible, leading to rare and experimental company-specific parts and company-exclusive contracts. You'd also be limited to contracts from companies that are on good terms with the company you join. If you want to defect, there's an escape mission, company-specific, at any time, and once during the plot you are actually prompted in case you overlook or don't consider it. If you defect twice, no-one but the newest company will have you and the original two will send company-specific AC assassins in a dual AC battle mission. If you defect from the newest company they are destroyed shortly afterwards with plot consequences. There will be a storyline for defectors who betray to this extent, as well as one for all-rounders who never affiliate, as well as company-specific ones for loyal affiliates. If a company is destroyed during the plot, you have a choice between the two or three that absorb the company's researchers.
Additionally, you can build your own company, depending on the investment you put in and rewards from missions. For example, you may be given a contract to destroy a lab, but while there evacuate some of the scientists for your own base. However, if you use experimental parts from a company to speed your own development without their consent, they send an AC to destroy you. If you fail this mission, you lose a random selection of the parts you own and your company is destroyed. It would be intentionally difficult to complete this path, but if succeeded, unique parts along the way and a unique ending.
I really could go on for quite a while. I haven't even gotten into back weapons, hover legs, tank imbalance, why I don't like weapon tuning, the pathetic enemy variety in recent games, why I really like the retrofit parts of ACVD even though I hate the visual approach among regular parts, and how ACVD is basically what ACV should have been.
I also have strong views on refugees, censorship, the environment, and other similar things, but I wouldn't be able to output a monologue like I can for AC.
EDIT: The changes towards multiplayer team-based focus were for the better and to help retain new players and grow the playerbase, making the series more viable in the long run. The similar part models are to save on costs, as FROM does not have a large budget and was pushed for time. It is better to have two similar weapons than one weapon without variation. The peripheral stuff is not important to the series' appeal, which is the customisation and gameplay, and time constraints mean that the extra content would only be appreciated by a niche of the community while the majority are invested in the online conquest mode. Also, given FROM's attempts at characterisation at all in AC games, chances are the NPCs would be hammy and terribly voice-acted, and the dialogue would be predictable and shallow, as well as the side missions and so on. Basically, improving the singleplayer is a waste of time because multiplayer is what will grow the player base and keep the series afloat. It is also for this reason that stats have been simplified and weapons less varied, as the series has a reputation for being obtuse that can only hurt its appeal to new players.
As for the others I briefly mentioned, can't even think of good arguments against. And I didn't believe any of the bullshit I spouted about AC either. If you can't cater to your one fucking niche who like the games, you're making the wrong game.
