I didn't enjoy my crushing playthrough at all, every shootout felt like a chore. Not sure if that's due to getting tired with the formula or worse design somehow. I assumed the former until this thread.
It's nice to be validated. I didn't know if it was just me, or what. Seems like a common reaction now. Around launch time you can never really tell about these nuances like difficulty balancing, since (a) passions run high (i.e., lots of 0/10 and 10/10 analyses, not a lot of realistic ones), and (b) many people start on Moderate and haven't had time to explore the difficulties.
I hope ND is reading.
It's actually kind of an interesting thought experiment: if some game design principal is reading this, would they actually get some kind of insight from it that they don't already have? Common sense would suggest "LOL NO, IT'S THEIR GAME, THEY'VE PLAY-TESTED AND ANALYZED THE SHIT OUT OF IT BY NOW, YOUR DINKY THREAD ISN'T GONNA DO ANYTHING!"...
...but then I think back to the Uncharted 3 Broken Aiming Debacle Of 2011, wherein a big GAF thread got a HUGE mechanical bug
noticed by ND and then fixed (more accurately, an option to fix it was added to the game). They actually had a few GAFers go into their offices to show the problem in order to help get it fixed. And the most insane thing is that ND -- publicly at least -- has had no explanation for what exact code change caused the bug, nor how that change got into the code (e.g., multiplayer was fine!!!), nor how it got past QA and play-testing. All of this to me is stunning, as a software engineer myself. If I were an engineer at ND, I'd get to the bottom of that one with GREAT personal interest.
In other words, ND are amazing engineers/managers/etc., but they are only human engineers/managers/etc. after all.
(Side note: I made that thread back in 2011. I'm not suggesting any pattern here at all... just proud of that little moment in my Internet life, that's all.)