Hear ye, hear ye, and listen to the sage critique of James Jones- a man that hates Zelda and Star Fox games for not being what he wants, yet willingly puts himself through the tedium of titles like Bravely Second and Project X Zone because someone needs to appreciate such bloated, grueling affairs. Is it that he can only enjoy things that are inherently mediocre? Or perhaps that his standards for classic franchises are too clouded by nostalgia...?
Jokes aside, I think I've claimed by stake as the most apologetic gamer in existence regarding Lost Reavers- but something about Jon's analysis doesn't sit right with me. In what way is the game a first person shooter? I could see a third person shooter, maybe, but that doesn't take into account the huge amount of melee combat that exists. Maybe I'm the one playing the game wrong, but even the "all-ranged" characters have melee attacks, and I've found that its much more of a factor in controlling the undead hordes.
Again, it is a shameless pay-to-win, but the collectible screen (which shows you how many of a certain special item from each mission you've obtained) has rewards, such as bundles of data chips, that can make the loot cycle far more forgiving. But as far as loot-cycle-based titles go, I don't think Lost Reavers is too atrocious- generic, maybe- but not lazily designed. Seasoned players (i.e. those in the level 20 range) rarely "troll" by standing outside the spawn boundaries, likely because they understand those enemies don't grant experience. The customization, role-based gameplay balanced with the equipment systems also has plenty of interesting depth, which feels far from lazy.