All Activity

mario and luigi doing there job for once

So I have been looking at these, I think it is difficult to say if the price is wrong or right as similar to the PC market there is such a wide range of price points based on the hardware and specs. The base model puts it similar to the OLED steamdeck and looking at reviews performance wise I don't believe they are too far apart. Where you lose out with the screen though the screen is still meant to be decent but you then get access to all gaming librarys a bit easier and game pass which is a lot trickier with the steam deck. The more expensive model comes in a little more affordable than the premium options such as the Legion Go 2 and the onexplayer and such. It has reviewed quite well and the Xbox ally X is an improvement on the Rog ally X that it was built upon. However the limiting factor seems to be the OS still, it's windows and it is just not optimised well enough. I am planning to upgrade my steamdeck (my brother is having it) and have my sights on the Lenovo Legion Go S. It is comparable to the base Xbox Ally specwise but performs much much better and by all accounts it is just down to the Steam OS and it's optimisation of games and such.

I think part of that is the spawns as well, I don't know if you have noticed but if you are capturing a base and people spawn in on said base they almost always spawn behind you. I think this is about trying to keep everything happening at a fast pace for players, you know the ADHD aspect of COD.

The maps are just bad. I've played BF since Bad Company and I've generally enjoyed most of them (we can all just forget Hardline exists) but I just don't like this game. I don't remember getting shot in the back as much as I do in this game. I think it's because the maps are really small compared to previous BF games.

Yes sorry. Yes it is a bad thing, progression for this series should have been smarter maps, more tactical gameplay, improve upon the building elements of BFV, improving the destruction (which they have but the battle royale show's it could have gone further), develop naval warfare. They had to do it with BFV as well when they first attempted battle royale, this is becoming a recurring theme now and if it happens a third time around and is not successful then I know a few people who won't return to the series. This is CODafield currently and that's fine if that is the direction they go in and it works, but as you say if those COD fans go straight back to COD when it is realeased it will be all for nothing and will have further alienated the fan base that has kept this series going.

With all the past experience etc I'm always baffled as to why game developers can't come up with better offerings or even equal offerings to what they've managed on inferior hardware. All of these maps are worse than what we've had in the past. Why are there stairs to nowhere rooms you open up that go nowhere clutter everywhere sometimes more is less. Then there's the new map, which is just dull, there are definitely a couple which are simply fine, no idea what they are called as I simply don't care. Im sure peoples views on maps depend on the game mode they play. The game isn't bad but it really could have been so much better.

I'm glad you're enjoying it and people are playing together but while I have played it a fair bit I am still going to compare it to true battlefield games and on that score it's a little disappointing. As for the gunplay that's one aspect it really does do as well as Cod both are equally inconsistent 😉

I'll give some thought Phil. Can't seem to find any enthusiasm for PS5 games now

I think it is because when you fuse all these Codified ingredients together, you essentially get a completely different game. There is very little difference between this and what we played 3 years ago in Call of Duty and it's clear this game was developed off the back of that and by ex-COD devs. Battlefield maintaining its identity with all the originality it created was far more important but they've clearly wanted to entice COD players to the series when COD was at its most vulnerable, but this has come at the cost of BF's core design and without doing anything new or innovative. This game is miles off MW2019 and doesn't have much room to manoeuvre in terms of innovation. It just feels like they are recycling so much that we've seen the past 6 years. I don't mind Battlefield moving away from its identity and evolving but there is nothing here that we haven't seen in many other live service games in the past several years and all the padded-monetisation is really piss poor too. These changes could hurt the game because if they lose 50% of players back to COD then all these changes were in vain and then the developers will have to cling on to the alienated Battlefield community to rework things - something they did for 4 years straight after they screwed up royally with 2042.

You mean Battlefield, right? I've played far more CoD than BF. Like years. Is that a bad thing in Battlefield? I get that you want games to stick to some sort of 'DNA' here, but I don't think this really hurts the game. That's a fair point, as I wouldn't know this given my experiences lie more with CoD than BF. It doesn't 'feel' like CoD to me though. Its not about twitch movements, KD, and CoD really doesn't have any squad co-ordination whatsoever. The way they've put the control points out there, it definitely has pulled me in. We had a game last night where they were taking us out with lone snipers on the mountain, so it was a nice tactic to try and get C and D, whilst we had 1-2 of us on cover fire to try and get rid of those annoying snipers. I agree with this 100%. That being said, maps and gunplay dictate all FPS games we've ever played. We usually drop them when the maps kill people's love for the game or the gunplay is too all over the shop for us.

I think this show's your limited experience of COD, I can't believe it but I am agreeing with James twice in one day, it is the pacing. The game wants you in constant fire fights and does not appreciate there is gameplay in a slower gameplay style, looking for ways to flank the enemy or sneak around to objectives on the other side of the map adding a tactical element into the game. There have been a few times we have gone to take the base closest enemy HQ but to get there you have to essentially run through the main pathways of the map. On other battlefield games you saw it more in that you would get certain vehicles associated with a point, so say the team that captured point C would get an extra chopper or plane or tank for example. This game is much more COD than I think you realise, in fact I would say this is COD ground war moreso than old battlefield. Yes the gameplay is COD esque but that's not necassarily terrible, however most guns are like lasers, the guns don't feel weighty and there is no skill required i.e. trying to allow for recoil or bullet drop. The range finder as we were discussing last night is mad the way it basically makes it a piece of piss to hit a target with. I am enjoying it to some extent but whether it will have the longevity in it I am not sure, it will really depend on the maps.

Played the intro round and then a proper one, managed to not die. Runs well on my 1080ti, I'm getting 110 fps on medium settings which is just insane. Finally a new game that has proper optimisation for older cards 🥳

You have a choice of either the Battlestate Games servers or your own server. I do my own as its a lot quicker loading into the maps. I'd love someone to join me. Its very hardcore but once you know what you're doing its pretty straightforward. There's 5 traders who offer you missions and tasks and I follow these to rank up and get better gear : )

I don't think it being a WoW alternative was the issue, I think it's as James mentioned above that it has lacked a true roadmap with ideas for it's future since launch. My favourite WoW alternative was Guild Wars, though I have not been back to it in some time that still continues going and has just released new DLC, similarly Final Fantasy 14 still does quite well amongst others. It is no different to most games albeit more extreme, it is more important than COD and the like to keep these sort's of games feeling fresh. I think it's a shame, I did play it and there were some good ideas in there but as you get further into the game it get's a bit repetitive and the end game was somewhat lacking.

Do you play on a particular server Phil. I'm interested coz you're so passionate about it

I think it also is reflected in the general pacing and the amount of engagements players find themselves in. Stims, knee sliding and very generous mechanics make it blur more and more into COD. There are also little consequences for loss of territory and objectives, and even the squad system lacks identity. Plus the challenges and progression system is a carbon-copy and is nowhere near as rewarding or interesting. The interface and how the BR is framed is a ridiculous clone of MW2 back in 2022.

I really need to jump on this properly at some point. Too much Tarkov and now Arc Raiders will likely take my time. But yeah maps will make or break a game as far as I'm concerned and I've seen nothing so far that competes with those of the earlier games. BF3 and BF4 are still the peak maps wise. Base jumping into a map like in BF3 needs a come back 🤪

I don't normally go for 3rd person games but I'll be all over this, I pre-installed it tonight and it might finally be the game to give Tarkov a bit of competition. It also runs well on old GPUs which is great for me. Doesn't really have missions, just daily tasks and achievements as far as I'm aware.

Ha ha no sitting in bushes or corners, I just use top tier armour and headshots. Level 37 now and over 300 raids with about same kd. This year this game hit my all time top 5 favourite games of all time since I embraced doing all the tasks. Game comes out of early access on 15 November so I have until then before the final wipe 🙂

The Codified part I think its more about the gunplay for me, but thats a benefit in my eyes as I've never felt BF shooting has been a smooth experience. Now it feels great. I can't probably comment on the differences in older BF Maps to these maps - I just take it for what it is in this game. The destruction works well in quite a few of them. Siege of Cairo has certain parts that really can make you feel immersed in the battle for a control point. If they want to change one thing, its the lighting on the desert maps - or add a few more buildings that help people on foot get from A to E abit easier without being sniped all the time. There definitely seems enough vehicles on each map to help the charge. If I was being critical from a BF POV, I'd more angle my thoughts towards size. There probably isn't a truly epic/large map at launch. Its either that, or they've made sprinting far quicker with a knife. I'm happy as I don't feel like this game has running simulator in it, but I appreciate that can weirdly annoy others.

Apparently they were quite taken aback when questioned about it so I'm guessing they just said that to keep people happy and probably don't have anything planned or developed currently. Naval maps should've been in there from the off but with there being no naval maps even in Battlefield 2042 then I can't see it happening anytime soon. Seems like these developers want things strictly Codified and boots on the ground outside of land and air vehicles.

I have not picked it up yet as I can't afford it and with other games I want at the moment it is not my priority. From the recent beta I experienced the missions are simple, go in collect something, destory a certain number of bots and collect components from them and that sort of thing. I did not see any 'bosses' as such but then again I was not very far into the game and only did a handful of the early missions really.

I think I am similar to James in that none really stand out apart from the god awful firestorm map, why they thought that was the one to bring back I have no idea and I think they really missed a trick in that they should have made the central tower fully destructable. I think I lean towards the siege of Cairo as my current favourite as the destruction is really good and there is plenty on that map. On the point above I thought they had said they were already exploring naval maps or have them in mind for future release? I will say if you compare them to maps in BF1 or V I think they still have a way to go with this game and you can certainly feel the COD elements that have been brought over with the current people in the design process, not necassarily to the benefit of the game either.

another great game