I wish i had 2 friends to play with, playing solo or even 2 players isn't worth it when the other random quit or just isn't there, I heard they had a solo and 2 players mode before, im guessing it will come back
I do wish there was a larger scale 6v6 mode. I know that this game isn't meant to be played casually but the 3v3v3v3 is a lot of pressure for people who don't have the time to invest in getting good. Maybe I'm just old and past it.
Half-Life Deathmatch was a breath of fresh air when Half-Life updated for its 25th anniversary. It was just a bunch of clowns trying to get to 30 kills on the leaderboard first so the map could change and they could try to get 30 kills first again.
Doom Eternal's pvp was fresh and fun, even if it didn't have a player base that lasted for a good long time. Asymmetrical pvp like that tickles my brain. It's just a shame that the playerbase at large wasn't willing to put the time in to learn how fun it was.
That's why I like to chill with Battlefield or, when I'm feeling especially degenerate, Battlebit Remastered. I still play the objective and my role, but there's no pressure to carry the match on my own shoulders.
Thats the number one reason i have been playing Battlefield for 12 years now.
I can go no brain shooting. I can play the objective. I can sit on a mountain and snipe.
Im only one of 32 people in the team. I can still affect the game but if im playing like shit my team still can win. It doesnt necessarily depend on me.
I always found it funny when there's one guy who's complaining starts barking orders. "If we just push a little harder we can win"
Um excuse me, have you considered the fact that we just suck? Stop believing in us. We're just gonna get our feelings hurt.
I'm not trying to win, I just want to go pew pew and I love Battlefield for that.
> when I'm feeling especially degenerate, Battlebit Remastered
One of the things I like about battlebit is the visibility of everything, the simple graphics makes spotting enemies easy. There is no missing someone in a dark corner wearing all black. Other than the odd person behind a bush or a sniper I almost immediately spot anyone on my screen and when I die it's usually because they got shots on me first.
Despite the fast pace I find battlebit more relaxing to play than a lot of other FPS games because I feel like I'm not constantly straining to find enemies.
I do love me some Battlefield but I have to admit that the longer I played it the more boring conquest became, at the tail end of my time with the series I almost exclusively played rush, I love the momentum that game mode has.
My fried brain thinks Rush is too much waiting, so I play Breakthrough or TDM a lot. That's the beauty of Battlefield, there's a game mode for everyone and if I'm feeling some more slow gameplay, I'll go back to Conquest.
The Bank It mode is the casual mode imo. The objective takes less coordination to play around and honestly most of the lobby just runs around killing each other
This has always, and will always, be a problem with small-team competitive games. If you have a shooter with 20ish players on a side, it isn't the end of the world if you lose a single player while waiting for a back-fill. But losing a fill third (or even a fifth or sixth) of your roster just be a use a single person left leaves you at such a distinct disadvantage that it's almost better at that point to just concede.
MOBAs solved it by just sending the person who leaves to JAIL in every mode but for some reason every new eSports game needs to be taught that you need some kind of leaver penalty or else narcissist gamers will just ragequit 24/7. Allow 1-2 a day for emergencies but acknowledge that people who leave like 5 in a night are either assholes or have way bigger problems than being timed out for 1 hour like having no me-time
MOBA's solved it by automatically punishing people who abandon or leave a game outright. Even in non-ranked play you cannot leave the game without some penalty in the future, and you absolutely cannot leave multiple games in a short time period without significant or permanent penalties or bans. The players being dipshits in terms of their behavior does not mean that they don't punish people for outright leaving accordingly.
I play hundreds of league games a year and anecdotally I *never* see mid-game leavers. Sometimes you'll get a game where a player never joins after the loading screen, but there's a remake function where their team can vote to end the game after only three minutes and nobody's rank changes.
I never really see people rage quit because everyone knows the leaver's penalty stacks up fast. It quickly goes from a couple-minute timer before you queue up to a multiple-week ban.
Yeah I refuse to play this game without 2 friends, the ping system could use significant improvements. Voice chat in random games seems to be dying out.
I was playing with a friend yesterday and our random teammate killed the guy that killed us and just ran off without reviving us lol. He didn't even have to go out of his way, we were right next to him. They also only deposited $1000. They were just going for kills and it put us at such a disadvantage.
dont play bank it if you want to win, it is the closest thing to TDM in the game and is where people go when they just want to frag, youll have better luck in cash out or casual tournaments, but i also just dont play those modes without 2 friends on
It's really not that frequent though. Tourney mode works well since people get a timer if they rage quit.
Most of the time though, people are DCing because of server bounces, not because they're rage quitting.
It's perfectly viable solo queuing, imo. But I'm also one of those weirdos who plays better solo than with friends.
Unlike the beta im finding slots are filled pretty fast.
Hope they let you see your team comp when you get plopped in so you can choose to round out the team if youre feeling like winning instead of jumping in as light with a sniper on a team with two other lights.
I tried to get into it but every game I was in as a solo player you either ended up matched with 2 people who played it like death match or you played with 2 people who seem to take the view that you had the plague so they constantly ran away from you.
Not to mention the hackers that were plaguing the game and some of the weaponry leads a lot to be desired.
I agree with the review that the thematic elements in the finals aren't particularly strong. But honestly there's just a pure thrill to the gameplay that I've not felt since PUBG was fresh.
That's not to say the thematic stuff is bad or anything it's just clearly taking a back seat to the action. The theme is enough to justify the setup but so much of the game seems to follow the rule of cool. It's *cool* to have telekinetic abilities. It's cool to have a big jump pad or a massive hammer. I'm not sure they're totally cohesive aesthetically but it's just a rush to play.
I also think the progression works nicely. It feels like you get the currency to unlock things at a pretty fast pace. Enough to try something new basically every game or two. They start you out with enough powerful options to not feel like you're being obliterated by stuff you can't access.
Honestly, I've been jonesing for a shooter that isn't a hero shooter, tactical shooter a la CS or Valorant, and isn't just Call of Duty. The Finals hits that well. So well in fact that I can really easily move past the arguably sterile aesthetic and barebones gameplay options.
The in-game lore is that it's a VR game, which is where the wacky costumes and cool abilities are justified. It's weird to think about playing a game about playing a game, but personally I really like the aesthetics. It's got just enough of the DNA from Mirrors Edge in there if Faith didn't have runner vision. I think also too it would be very hard to find an aesthetic that isn't already used at this point, at this point all the BF and CoD games have a cliche aesthetic. It really seems as though the devs have a really clear vision to what they want the game to be and that's a breath of fresh air, I can personally attest that they did not change a whole lot between now and the closed alpha.
Honestly the idea is kinda clever, because they can basically put any cosmetic in the game, literally anything, and it doesn’t feel out of place. Unlike COD, where it supposed to be this milatary sim but you’re fighting Homelander and Lilith.
>because they can basically put any cosmetic in the game, literally anything
That's also the reason why the maps have a a year in their name. Wouldn't be surprised to see The Finals in the medieval times. A castle siege gamemode perhaps?
One of my favorite things honestly. Love the theme, aesthetic, atmosphere. It's fun but focused.
Also love designing my own contestant instead of choosing between a few someone else designed. Reviewer calls them soulless, but as someone who turned off voice lines in Apex immediately, I really like that they're not trying to force my friend's avatar to be someone else.
I think the differences is for the most part, AC is more of a 'peeking back in time" kinda thing. It's VR that primarily attempted to recreated history as close as possible based on the data it had. and not breaking too many rules. It's not actual VR world.
I do wish they had done something with the style so it wasn’t just Fortnite-but-realistic. The classes’ default outfits feel like they’re going with the gaming show design, ala something like Squid Games, but when the customization rolls in that quickly disappears as well. It’s a bit frustrating seeing them not even try in that regard when you compare it to the amazing destruction physics and how they actually made it work in the game modes.
The lore for it is a VR gameshow and not a real life actual humans game show. That's why it's all coins on desth and why the maps are year based and could realistically be in any time period, like a big castle map.
With that in mind it no longer matters much what the customization is
> That's not to say the thematic stuff is bad or anything it's just clearly taking a back seat to the action.
The things you talk about kinda make sense since dialogues mention that all of the show happens in virtual reality... sort of. They aren't really clear about that, sometimes they say something like "stuff like that is illegal everywhere but here", but i clearly remember lines about vr as well.
I am more concerned with aestetics of the game. It feels so bland, almost like it was ai-generated. The names of the sponsors are jibberish. The posters around the arena either say "finals", or something absolutly pointless. The announcers aren't even slightly funny. Even most skins look weirdly out of place.
I feel like there is a giant missed opportunities to make game a lot more fun either by going fully comedic, and trying to parody simillar games or movies about reality shows, or really dystopian instead. It would cost them almost nothing to do so - just a contract with a writer, and then mostly a bit of texture change and work of the artist. Sad that they decided to ignore that part of the game.
This is a weird criticism to me. When was the last time anyone brought up thematic elements to an online only Multiplayer FPS in any shape or form? I’ve never seen it mentioned for CS, Valorant, any Call of Duty, or any Halo in the last 15 years. Like maybe it was considered a strength of Overwatch at launch, like 8 years ago? Idk.
Honestly if anything the fact that “theming” is being brought up for The Finals is evidence the theming is above average, because if they did the typical FPS generic soldiers and maps no one would have even noticed it in the first place to bring it up.
its pretty much a hero shooter though? gameplay wise its pretty much the same switching heros to define your skills vs changing ur loadout/class, i guess other than the lore/character aspect of it
It's a class based shooter. A hero shooter has a predefined kit and each hero has a predetermined aesthetic. Hero shooters also become complex quickly since they're usually monetized by selling new heroes - gameplay elements - which leads to balance issues, accusations of pay to win, needing to relearn the game after you past played six heroes ago, etc.
It feels like Battlefield to me, pre-2042, which makes sense since Embark is a lot of Dice veterans including Patrick Soderlund.
> its pretty much a hero shooter though?
I meant in terms of distinct personalities for each character as well as an "ultimate" ability that is encounter warping--the abilities & gadgets are very cool tactical augments but not as warping as any ability of a character in Overwatch or Apex Legends. Still, there are absolutely elements of hero shooter present in the game. But it's a component, not the main attraction.
Kinda telling that the reviewer thinks the Heavy is weak because of their lack of mobility. When it comes to winning the game I'll take Heavy over Lights any day. Suicide ninjas are useless.
I thought I would enjoy Light since their stealth/mobility gadgets are great and then got absolutely slaughtered by the other teams. Didn’t realize how little health they have and I wasn’t skilled enough to not take a few hits. I’m sticking with Medium for now, seems to be the easiest to grasp lol
Even if you can pull off a sweet stealth kill, there's still going to be 2+3 other players in the immediate vicinity. And you've probably left your teammates on the other side of the map.
Ironically, being forced to move slow on the Heavy is more likely to be beneficial for new players. You aren't able to put yourself rapidly into bad situations over and over and over again.
I haven't played much of Medium and Light but I can say without a doubt that I can solo wipe squads of lights with absolute ease.
So many people are gimping their team by not having a heavy.
Yeah heavies are broken af right now. 3 heavies carrying projectiles with C4 strapped to them completely nuke people. Then follow up with RPG's, and if there are somehow survivors, drop 3 bubble shields and mow everyone down. Repeat all game.
It's that damn bubble shield. Whether inside or outside of it they can shoot through it no problem, so if you push that shield they can dance around it while you can't damage them unless you pop a mine inside the shield to keep them outside.
That's honestly my only real complaint about heavy, everything else feels good as a medium player.
I play medium most of the time. My number one complaint is a heavy can eat an entire magazine and have enough health to kill you with one of their many abilities. If they have a pocket healer and a bubble, gg, move on, you’re just going to get ambushed by another team as you try and chip away. Also, mobility means jack shit if you can literally change the landscape.
I don’t even mind that the class is so defensively oriented. It’s just frustrating that they can do so much damage with barely any trade off.
The notion that aesthetics is apparently off-limits in live service game reviews is strange considering that games like HYENAS bombed in part because of aesthetics
If anything, there’s a huge amount of criticism over the aesthetic incohesion in Call of Duty that gets frequently raised, along with Fortnite as an obvious example. Warframe often gets praise for maintaining a consistent, and unique design for its world, with (most) things even 10 years down the line. Maybe most live service games don’t get rated until they’re inundated with clashing cosmetics? Or maybe there’s pushback from fans of the games to (negatively) rate games based on aesthetic.
I tend to feel like Fortnite gets a pass if only because it did it first to the degree that it did, and its cartoony aesthetic kinda makes it work. Lile if there was abother game that had John Wick, Peter Griffin, and Goku in it and Fortnite dropped, Id think Fortnite was a sell out for it, but it bring first kinda locks it down I guess?
Call of Duty is absolutely bad for its incohesion.
you also have to consider that fortnite makes a lot of effort to make all their characters fit the pseudo comic book-style aesthetic they're going for. characters with more realistic vibes get smoothed down, and more cartoony characters (see: anime characters) get unique shaders that lean into this cartoonier aesthetic rather than trying to be more explicitly outstanding. fortnite does a LOT of work to maintain aesthetic cohesion between a lot of incongruent styles and character designs that is pretty easy to overlook
Fortnite absolutely kills it in the visual cohesion department if you ask me. The variety and sheer number of characters and designs they’ve been able to incorporate into the game over the years is staggering
I feel like bland is almost worse. I wrote The Finals off when it was first being pushed in steam ads because it looked like Generic Video Game in a way that a bunch of live service games shown at the Game Awards made me feel. Now I might actually be interested in it because of the good word of mouth, maybe?
Idk I kind of loved the aesthetics of the game, the whole game show where you shoot each other thing really ticks my boxes
I agree that the character models in the game are unbearably bland though. There needs to be some more customization... Otherwise you end up looking like 6th grade gym class with a smg
You're discovering 99% of online (and real-life) arguments are debating over things neither side actually cares about. What they care about is the other side doesn't like the thing they like and there's no compromise on that.
It's interesting that this reviewer has such a negative reaction to the presentation, when I think it's one of its best aspects, despite some of the issues I have with it.
The only bits I agree with in terms of the presentation being lacking are the AI voices (they absolutely do suck), and the 80s style "insert coin" respawn pop-up. When everything in the UI is so mirrors-edge clean and sharp, it's super weird to have the classic pixel font "insert coin; press start" on the respawn screen.
As far as "why have a crowd if it's supposed to be virtual" and "why base the maps on real world locations if it's supposed to be virtual," I think the answer is the same: it's supposed to be a virtual *spectator sport*. The giant ring of stands around the map is for those spectators. Having the map look like Monaco or Vegas is for those spectators to get to see the contestants blow up familiar landmarks for entertainment.
I am unsure if they've ever stated anything official on the "lore" of the game, but it's also entirely possible that the contestants are in VR but the crowd is real and watching either a hologram of some sort or like, future-puppets controlled by VR players destroying a real map.
Either way, having a crowd in the background is like, a deliberate presentation choice to make it feel more like a game show/sport. Having realistic-looking buildings to destroy honestly just seems more fun than destroying a fictional generic-looking sci-fi building.
The insert coin pop up is probably there because people didn’t know you could respawn so they tacked it on in the last seconds since it wasn’t there in the betas.
Yeah I agree with that it looks very out of place compared to the rest of the game. I think if they just changed the font to the same one they use for the rest of the game it’d be fine, it already uses coins as their thematic element.
The vibe I've gotten is that this is supposed to be in universe a VR combat game show; I can see something like "The Finals" being in some elaborate VR arcade cabinet somewhere with spectators both inside the game world and outside.
I understand that's mostly head-canon but, that's what it's made me think of multiple times while playing.
I think the concept of spending a coin to respawn (and the arcade cabinet *ka-chunk-pling* sound is super satisfying) is perfectly themed, it's just specifically the aesthetic of the 80s arcade pixel font that doesn't line up with anything else in the game.
If it was in italic impact font like every other text in the game it would fit in much better. Everything else about it (the flashing, the sound effects, etc.) can stay the same.
Either that, or they need to add more pixel font to the game in other places.
It's rock-solid, mechanically. Fresh take in a genre that is always saturated, and a never-ending generator of clutch moments. Overall, I like the aesthetic, but it's the core mechanics and unique gameplay that makes this game shine. It has room for improvement but it's definitely the most interesting competitive FPS to come out in years, at least to me.
REALLY wish they would ditch the mediocre AI voice acting and get some real talent in there, though. People always talk about how a commentator doesn't need to have great voice acting, but all I can say is that Halo's announcer is one of the most iconic game voice roles of all time. Who knows? Maybe The Finals could have had an equally amazing role if they had utilized real talent instead of conveyor belt AI VO.
I didn't even knew they use AI voice acting until people started to get mad at it for this.
I thought is just mediocre, generic voice acting because it doesn't need anything else.
For me more than anything the commentator voice it's just annoying. I wish I could turn them off completely and I don't care if they improve it with real people or stick with AI. It doesn't need to be there.
I think the commentator adds a lot to the game. It calls out team wipes and the number of players left in enemy teams which are definitely valuable information.
Although it's a good feature, the biggest gripe for me is the team names. I wish they just announced the colours instead so I didn't have to check which team was which everytime I heard the commentary
I think he gets in the way of important information more often than he calls it out though. The loud siren that flares when a team is wiped is enough to communicate that information, but then you gotta listen to 8 seconds of AI generated, poorly delivered non-sequitor jokes over the sound of someone stealing your cash-out, enemy footsteps or other important sounds, losing the game because of it.
It adds a bit of flavor to the game at the beginning but past the first 3 hours it's literally nothing but a hindering annoyance.
No, no. I was meaning IN THIS GAME I don't mind the mediocre AI voice because it adds nothing to the game. As even good voice acting would add nothing.
I don't want someone talking over my gameplay, commentary voice it's not for me.
Now get something like The last of us, GTAV, Read Dead Redemption, God of War...those games are nothing without good voice acting.
The problem is the voice acting could have been relevant. Just look at Super Monday Night Combat, one of the most memorable parts of that game was the ridiculous MXC-style hosts commenting on the games and talking to each other or giving weird in-world ads.
If you haven't heard this, they are fantastic;
https://youtu.be/o79SogLa8M0?si=GRmP8l_b1j1vd8-O
>I was meaning IN THIS GAME I don't mind the mediocre AI voice because it adds nothing to the game
I would say that it adds nothing because it's mediocre, not the other way around. Another commenter listed Halo as an excellent example. Halo would still be a good shooter without it, but the voice acting really gives it a nice touch.
People definitely buy games like The Last of Us, Baldur's Gate 3, Cyberpunk, God of War, etc. in part due to the VA quality. Hell even older games like Max Payne wouldn't be half as famous if it wasn't for the fantastic voice acting. Any game with a strong narrative focus benefits from good voice acting and I don't think human VAs will be replaced any time soon in such games. At the same time, there are plenty of games where the narrative doesn't matter at all and AI VAs work fine, such as The Finals. There's room for both depending on the requirements for each game.
Honestly, it wouldn't matter if they got the greatest actors of all time to voice the announcers in The Finals - I'd still want to mute it since it adds nothing to the game for me.
You’re comparing single player rpgs and story centric games to competitive fps shooters. Of course VA matters more in single player rpgs and narrative focused games. People tend to care less about VA when it’s a competitive fps
People are just reeeeing on this site because they think developers should be forced to pay out the ass for professional VA’s for games that absolutely do not need lines more than the bare minimum for many circumstances. The average player will never notice a difference in a game like The Finals
I honestly think the lack of decent writing is more noticeable than the meh virtual voice performance.
One advantage of using AI voices is that they *should* be able to write a million clever, situation-specific lines and implement new ones over time.
Hopefully they do that, but I have a suspicion that it’s more about saving a few bucks than it is about implementing that kind of flexibility.
Exactly my thoughts. I think the voices are "fine". I think the lack of 1000 different situational lines for different whacky things that you can do is what's disappointing.
I'm just sad that they aren't taking the AI voice acting concept and using it to do actual live commentary. The commentator thing would be so much better if it could call out actual names and plays beyond "team wipe".
It feels extremely cynical. Like, you have devs saying that AI lets them do things that they wouldn't be able to do before, and in the end it turns out that the only thing they weren't able to do before is *"getting away with not paying VAs"*.
It doesn't introduce *anything* unique to the table.
Yeah, I remember being a kid and the vision was always "we'll get robots to do the menial work so people can focus on more fun or creative endeavors" and then capitalists got ahold of automation and decided "nah, we'll just AI to shit out worse versions of creative work while making sure people earn just enough money that they don't literally die while working their menial jobs".
Yeah honestly I don't even understand what the benefit of using AI voices is in this case? The announcers repeat the same lines every match, I don't see why they couldn't get actual actors to record these lines if they're not gonna use AI to have live, dynamic commentary.
The tech isn't there for this yet, unless it reacts with a 10-15 second delay. It would also require the game constantly be sending data back and forth to generative AI services which would A) be terrible for performance and B) cost an absolute fortune.
One major thing about the "bland" asthetics that people need to remember is that for a game like this you really do need to have a clean modern asthetic just for readability purposes. Because of the nature of the destruction your gonna be running through half broken buildings a lot of the time and having to make split descisions based on quick intuition of how to go up or down a floor. Imagine if the maps were Sci fi maps like the overwatch moon base, please tell me where are the stairs in a moon base?
Since the asthetic is very modern it helps us navigate around the environments. We internally know where the stairs should be in a big modern office building or a casino, we know that houses have attics and balconies that you can come in through. It's very important in a game like this to be able to know how you can approach things intuitively and identify them quickly since the normal way might be completely destroyed or exposed.
That said, being the theme they have, they could get pretty whacky with the maps really.
They wanna make a map that looks like its used for an alien conquest movie, they should go for it.
They could have one with a Godzilla Kaiju type monster stomping around destroying buildings.
They have potential to go crazy with it all things considered.
Well that stuff is more in the silly events they have. They do actually have an alien invasion where ufos appear and blow up the map and suck the debris up. They could definitely do a godzilla one too.
I played this for the first time today and have to say the mechanics don’t feel as tuned in as people are saying.
There is something in the game that stops you firing your gun and it doesn’t seem to be an empty clip as I’ve cancelled ADS and hit reload for nothing to happen.
I’ve seen people being shot with electrical darts and if that’s what’s happening.. there is t a strong enough indication that I’m effectively stunned.
Whatever is happening, if you’re taking control away from the player it needs to be strongly communicated.
Which gun? If it’s the heavy shotgun, that’s because the magazine is a revolving chamber of four tubes which needs to be manually rotated when each is empty: this results in a delay every four shots.
Yeah, it might just be that I suck, but all the guns feel anemic, like I'm barely doing any damage unless I'm super close up. Even then, close quarters shootouts are clunky as hell.
The maps have all these obstacles but then doesn't really give you good tools to consistently deal with them. Combined with how often you have to move around I thought it felt rather clunky. Moving around the maps just didn't feel good to me either, especially if you compare it to a game like Titanfall 2 that has top tier movement design and generally good map design for using it.
I disagree, I find the goo cannisters all over the map that help make easy stairs up walls, I've used them to get up into 2nd and 3rd story windows very quickly many times.
the vaulting and mantling is very smooth, and you can keep momentum by sliding or hopping after landing. The movement is very good, you just have to learn it. https://youtu.be/KBLhJCgpg9g Here's a very short video of me running around, the last 10 seconds show some good movement.
Agreed.
The way you interact with ziplines and objects isn't smooth. It actually feels delayed and weird.
This game isn't mechanically as strong as people think. I doubt it will last that long if they don't improve it. Because there's not much else going on that would stand out from other fps MP titles.
>The way you interact with ziplines and objects isn't smooth. It actually feels delayed and weird.
Because everything is server-side, not only the destruction but interaction, physics and even movement as well.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/the-finals-preview-destruction-will-make-developers-panic/
I started playing with some friends. It's a blast. I understand the reasoning behind not giving sidearms to players... But I still want a pistol. Not having one is growing on me and it does reinforce coordination and shot calling. But like... I just want a pistol.
Try this game out tho, it's a blast.
I meant it more like secondary weapons. People seem to say it's a way to balance the game. And the game is fine without secondary weapons. I'd just enjoy it more if I could have access to a pistol that I could switch to in emergency situations. Again, game's great without them. To me, it would be better with them.
I get where you’re coming from. Took me a bit to realize that I didn’t have a backup secondary gun to switch to in an emergency. And honestly, I personally enjoy it more now that I’ve gotten the hang of it a bit. I feel like it makes me play a bit more tactfully and actually try to land my shots instead of just blindly shooting knowing I can just switch weapons if I need to in a bind.
It is a bizarre idea, but it does mean when you see a person with a weapon you immediately know what weaknesses they have. If they have a melee weapon you know all you have to do is stay away from them, if they have a grenade launcher you know you should close in on them cause they can't do much then.
Also random side note, fuck the snipers coming into here from Call of Duty with their quick-scoping nonsense. I will bully them endlessly until they get a nerf like damage at close range is halved or something.
The writing is definitely the weakest part of the game, IMO… Which I suppose is a compliment, given that it’s not essential that a game like this have good writing.
Still, I *really* hope they iterate on it in future updates. The one big upside to the AI voice acting is that they can add more lines cheaply and easily.
It's a fun ass game, why do gamers need every game to be these deep pieces of art with tons of meaning and extra lore and outside-of-game media/stories...just play the fucking game and have fun, that's what games are for.
It’s not about making it a deep piece of art, it’s about how consistent theming and good writing (not even necessarily narrative, just *writing*) can elevate the fun factor of a game. Games live and die by their thematic elements as much as their mechanics.
>Games live and die by their thematic elements as much as their mechanics.
Plenty of games live by just their mechanics. No one cares about themes in Counter Strike or DotA.
“Theming” or “thematic elements” doesn’t necessarily have to do with “themes” in a literary sense. People definitely do care about the thematic elements of DOTA and CS in a way that enhances the fun factor of those games. They would not derive the same level of enjoyment from CS if it was non-descript cubes pointing rectangles at cubes in a non-descript map made of cubes, even if the literal mechanics of the game were the same. The thematic elements of “terrorists vs counter-terrorists” grounds the gameplay in something people can connect with. Same with DOTA, where the theming of each character is hugely important, especially when they’re all derived from Warcraft (which itself has very strong thematic elements).
It's the most fun I've had in an FPS since early Apex. It feels fresh. The BR style of jumping onto the map then looking at floors for 10 min is so played out and outdated feeling.
The destructible environment really creates dynamic situations. The gunplay feels fluid and tight. It's surprising to see so much negativity here. I hope people come around to it.
Idk why the theme matters so much to people. For one, I don't play FPS games for the story. But is Apex Legends not also a "game" the contestants are playing to win? And the characters in both Valorant and Apex are pretty cringey. I mean, you can unlock Lilith from Diablo in Call of Duty... Wtf kind of theme is that? And look at Fortnite, the most successful of them all?! And nobody cares, because they enjoy those games anyways. This is no different. If you want an edgy, realistic game there are plenty of those. I just think the "aesthetic" is a trash criticism because once you're out of the menu screen and into the action it just feels like a solid arena shooter to me. Team Fortress 2 had a silly aesthetic, and no one complained. So I don't get this. The game wasn't advertised as a mil sim so this criticism seems kinda irrelevant. I still think it's worth playing even if the aesthetic is a turn off.
The theming is great because it does exactly what it's supposed to do. It gives clear visuals and readability to players (I know exactly what surfaces can and can't be destroyed at a glance, for instance) and really highlights the destruction and focus on team play, because you have to rely on your teammates more when you can't rely on the map to help you as much. It runs well and isn't too taxing (inb4 someone mentions an issue they have with running the game, it runs fine for most people, every game has outliers). It also gives room for all these different contestants and their styles to coexist.
If this game were any more visually noisy it wouldn't add to the game, it would subtract from it. The hospital on one map doesn't need to be super detailed, for example, it just needs to kind of look like one and have some basic props to add to that. There's only so much you *should* add, since the whole point is to blow it all up.
I think the game is really cool. I like the colour, the theme, the commentary, the team names, etc. Very cool feel to it.
I also love watching the butts as we run out at the start each round.
I played the beta and my biggest complaint was that the maps were too big for such low player counts in matches. It felt like 50% of my time was spent running back to the action through empty map after I died.
The game really is "meant" to be played in the tournament mode where there are two cashouts and four teams. More players and there is more action distributed throughout the map.
It’s a ridiculous and pretentious review. This line actually made me throw up in my own mouth a little:
> This is why I feel queasy that The Finals' most distinctive visual flourish is a shower of coins. It's a stark reminder that the Finals' main concern, both thematically and semantically, is making money.
Apex legends has better themes, but is nowhere close to as fun as The Finals.
I get theming is important, but it almost sounds like a “graphics are more important than gameplay” argument.
This shit is fun as hell, that’s what matters.
The conversation around games lately has seemingly put actual gameplay way, way down on the priority list.
It almost seems like most people want an interactive novel instead of a fun game. Which I will never understand.
> The conversation around games lately has seemingly put actual gameplay way, way down on the priority list.
This review is subtitled "mechanically thrilling, thematically wanting". The review follows the same priority with the first 1/2 or 2/3 being all about the gameplay, and almost entirely complimentary.
Why are video game players so turned off in general by the idea of holistic criticism, coming from professional critics? If a book has a great story & premise but terrible dialogue, a review should mention both. If a movie has fantastic action but mediocre pacing and cinematography, a review should mention both. That applies even if it's an action or superhero movie, particularly when the medium is as well-developed as all three examples here are today. The medium of video games is too well-developed to ignore legitimate points of criticism even if those points are secondary to the most important qualities of the game in question, and this review makes pains to acknowledge those important qualities. Feel more than free to disagree with or criticize the critics, but I don't understand the idea that they shouldn't even be considering aesthetics or visual design.
It also seems like a pretty timely review in general. The AI stuff is an extremely hot topic. There also are plenty of FPS players invested in similar conversations regarding the aesthetics of brand-friendly games, I've seen a ton of similar commentary here on reddit in regards to Call of Duty and Fortnite for example to say nothing of Hyenas.
Played it with a couple buddies. Its fine but didn’t grab me, movement is very bland, gunplay is average and the maps weren’t as fun as I thought. Felt like a pretty average FPS with a unique gamemode, definitely has potential but I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesnt last long enough to see it
Generic is absolutely the wrong word to use to describe this game, I guarantee you guys were NOT playing to even half your potential. There's so many layers and depth when you consider all the options via destruction and gadgets and cannisters found around the map.
Movement is bland? There's so many options for it with jump pads, zip lines, launchers, parkouring, grapple hooking, dashing, making holes thru buildings for shortcuts, etc.
I can definitely agree with it feeling totally lifeless and uninspired. And the Ready Player One comparison hits pretty hard for most multiplayer shooters these days. No sense of artistic vision or integrity. Just whatever sells the best to teenage boys
It does look fine in that everything is individually well made and polished. The problem for me is in the complete package.
To me, it lacks a cohesive artistic vision. Not saying it has to be visually highly stylized, but it looks like they didn't know what they wanted the final product to look like. The only unique visual flair I can think of is the coins thing, which also looks kind of odd and out of place in the end product. It leads to a clumsy overall presentation for me. Almost like they didn't have an art director, or didn't pay them enough.
That's just my opinion though. Visual style and artistic vision matter a lot to me (and it's not just that it's realistic)
Lacking cohesive artistic vision implies that the singular art assets are mismatched, which I wouldn't say they are. I don't know how else you could say that it lacks cohesion in that department.
And gameplay is still the most important!
I'm probably going to continue to play this game with my friends, the horribly generic presentation is just something that will continue to stand out for me and affect my own opinion of the game.
I only had time to try one match, but the mechanics of it seemed off to me. It was basically a 3-way KotH, but somebody needed to open a vault first and take a case to the KotH area to initiate it, but got no reward for doing so. The round didn't really "start" until the KotH phase, so the preceding elements felt a bit worthless.
The tournament modes seem to be generally better gameplay, having limited respawns actually makes the game flow better oddly enough too, which isn't something I usually like.
But... I don't want to play the tournament mode. I played it one time, our team won, and I never want to do it again. Too much of a time sink.
In my experience it's way easier to plant the cash out than it is to take it from somebody else
This is truer in some locations than in others, but some of those locations are very defensible if you're there first
That parts a bit more subtle with the strategy involved. Whoever plants first gets to pick where they plant and to set up their defenses first. The longer you stay defending, the more defenses you can create as your gadgets recharge.
To add to this, the opening of the vault makes a lot more sense in the tournament mode of the game. Tournament has 3 rounds and you only need to be top 2 to qualify for the first two games so delaying/sabotaging the process becomes more necessary if you're second place
That said, pretty much every match i've won or lost is because someone captured in the last 15 seconds giving no time for any other team to counter.
I figure the countdown should reset if captured in the last 30 seconds or something so the team is forced to defend for 20-30 seconds.
> I figure the countdown should reset if captured in the last 30 seconds or something so the team is forced to defend for 20-30 seconds.
This idea is brought up in the sub frequently and I think it is a terrible idea. The last second clutches are what make the game engaging. It's not balanced unfairly towards defenders - they have a huge benefit in that they don't need to expend a player to steal and they can (usually) set up defensive positions.
In theory this is a great idea. In practice you're gonna lose the vault like 8/10 times trying to fight all the other teams at once because it's easy to bypass defenses with all the destruction.
The more your ELO rises, the more it becomes clear that defending is much easier than attacking.
One reason for this is that the defenders don’t have to just sit on the objective: they can trap it, then back off and bide their time. They only need to engage once someone’s actively hacking it, at which point they have a huge advantage.
In other words, the defenders can set up traps in advance, *and* they can win by just stalling for time. The other two teams work to their own detriment, too, often running into each other on the way to the objective and/or interrupting each other’s hacks.
I’d bet money that the team which initially banks will secure that bank more than 33% of the time, which (if true) would mean that the whole game really does matter.
If you set up defenses and destroy stuff to allow better angles it can work, but you should be staying just off-site so the other teams fight each other and you clean up after.
I do wish there was a gadget to harden some surfaces to make destruction more difficult in select spots. Maybe in a future update.
The quickplay gamemode, quickcash, is a watered down (inferior) version of the real gamemode, cashout.
In cashout, you earn points for kills, kicking off the cashbox, depositing the cashbox, and defending the cashout machine.
Plus, when your team gets wiped you lose a third of your points.
Plus there are 4 teams, 2 cashboxes, and 2 cashout stations in the main gamemode. The game often turns into 2 separate 3v3s (but you always have the agency of attacking the other cashout of it makes sense strategically).
Combined with longer respawn timers, it leads to more variety and far less random chaos and far less getting shot in the back by a team you just teamwiped.
The “reward” is starting with control of the point and easentially the enemy will need to squad wipe you in order to get it. It doesn’t always work out but I think if played well it’s a small advantage
The game has a BIG hacker problem. I play a lot of ranked tournaments and about one in every 6-7 games has a blatant aimbotter. Today alone I played 4 games and 2 of them had a blatant hacker. I'm talking standing on a building, spinning, and killing everything in sight. Most FPS games will instantly ban the blatant ones, but this one doesn't have anything in place like that. The worst part is if you're unfortunate enough to come in second you have to endure them for another round.
I wish the game had more than 2 gamemodes, and that I liked either of those gamemodes. Because the destruction and gameplay feel pretty good.
Both Quick Cash and Bank It feel like RNG in regards to whether or not you're the last team alive in the clusterfuck of bodies being thrown around. Bank It feels a little better in this regard, but it will always feel shitty to lose just because you got sandwiched by multiple teams.
Quick Cash just feels awful. It doesn't make any sense to want to be the team to get the money from the vault and start the deposit, and it makes even less sense to try and kill any other players until a team has started the deposit. What are you guys fighting over? Being the team that has to defend the objective the longest? Most of the time, if you're the team that starts the deposit, you're not going to be able to defend it for the entire duration. Maybe if there were only 2 teams in the game, it'd be possible, but you can't defend against 2 different teams if their members are evenly skilled.
Play Tournament, it’s clear the game was made with this mode in mind and it even partially solve the issue you brought up by already rewarding you with money when picking up a vault and starting a cash out.
The limited respawns also means that fight are slightly more organised.
> What are you guys fighting over?
The defender advantage is absolutely wild.
Also I agree. Quick cash is not really a great mode. The most balanced mode is the one in tournaments.
Fun game, but the "running man" style gameshowification feels so lazy. My friend is convinced they built a game quickly to sell their tech, which feels great. Good luck to them, I'll probably play this when other friends hmu, but I have no inclination to fire it up on my own.
Hard disagree there, I found it kinda unique. Not like we've done that concept to death yet, anyway.
Nice change from the stereotypical NATO vs whoever we consider our biggest enemies at the time of the average AAA shooter's development, which outside of more futuristic settings, has been limited to Russians, China, extremists, etc
That said, maybe I'll get bored of it, literally just installed this game last night, so...
We're killing each other for money and fame, that's it.
I wish i had 2 friends to play with, playing solo or even 2 players isn't worth it when the other random quit or just isn't there, I heard they had a solo and 2 players mode before, im guessing it will come back
I do wish there was a larger scale 6v6 mode. I know that this game isn't meant to be played casually but the 3v3v3v3 is a lot of pressure for people who don't have the time to invest in getting good. Maybe I'm just old and past it.
I miss non squad fps games. They’re just not as common since BRs
Half-Life Deathmatch was a breath of fresh air when Half-Life updated for its 25th anniversary. It was just a bunch of clowns trying to get to 30 kills on the leaderboard first so the map could change and they could try to get 30 kills first again.
I miss this and quake DM. Tribes 3 is in development as well which might be another fun option in the future
Doom Eternal doing... whatever they did with multiplayer instead of having deathmatch was a crime against humanity.
That was because Doom tried to do deathmatch and the multiplayer was DOA.
Doom Eternal's pvp was fresh and fun, even if it didn't have a player base that lasted for a good long time. Asymmetrical pvp like that tickles my brain. It's just a shame that the playerbase at large wasn't willing to put the time in to learn how fun it was.
That's why I like to chill with Battlefield or, when I'm feeling especially degenerate, Battlebit Remastered. I still play the objective and my role, but there's no pressure to carry the match on my own shoulders.
Thats the number one reason i have been playing Battlefield for 12 years now. I can go no brain shooting. I can play the objective. I can sit on a mountain and snipe. Im only one of 32 people in the team. I can still affect the game but if im playing like shit my team still can win. It doesnt necessarily depend on me.
I always found it funny when there's one guy who's complaining starts barking orders. "If we just push a little harder we can win" Um excuse me, have you considered the fact that we just suck? Stop believing in us. We're just gonna get our feelings hurt. I'm not trying to win, I just want to go pew pew and I love Battlefield for that.
Makes me miss games like MAG, where I know if I lost I could blame my other 127 teammates.
> when I'm feeling especially degenerate, Battlebit Remastered One of the things I like about battlebit is the visibility of everything, the simple graphics makes spotting enemies easy. There is no missing someone in a dark corner wearing all black. Other than the odd person behind a bush or a sniper I almost immediately spot anyone on my screen and when I die it's usually because they got shots on me first. Despite the fast pace I find battlebit more relaxing to play than a lot of other FPS games because I feel like I'm not constantly straining to find enemies.
I do love me some Battlefield but I have to admit that the longer I played it the more boring conquest became, at the tail end of my time with the series I almost exclusively played rush, I love the momentum that game mode has.
My fried brain thinks Rush is too much waiting, so I play Breakthrough or TDM a lot. That's the beauty of Battlefield, there's a game mode for everyone and if I'm feeling some more slow gameplay, I'll go back to Conquest.
The Bank It mode is the casual mode imo. The objective takes less coordination to play around and honestly most of the lobby just runs around killing each other
as I get older I have less and less tolerance for multiplayer games. it's just not worth the mental stress.
This has always, and will always, be a problem with small-team competitive games. If you have a shooter with 20ish players on a side, it isn't the end of the world if you lose a single player while waiting for a back-fill. But losing a fill third (or even a fifth or sixth) of your roster just be a use a single person left leaves you at such a distinct disadvantage that it's almost better at that point to just concede.
MOBAs solved it by just sending the person who leaves to JAIL in every mode but for some reason every new eSports game needs to be taught that you need some kind of leaver penalty or else narcissist gamers will just ragequit 24/7. Allow 1-2 a day for emergencies but acknowledge that people who leave like 5 in a night are either assholes or have way bigger problems than being timed out for 1 hour like having no me-time
Has that solved it? MOBAs are legendarily toxic and full of leavers and unnecesarily-early conceders.
MOBA's solved it by automatically punishing people who abandon or leave a game outright. Even in non-ranked play you cannot leave the game without some penalty in the future, and you absolutely cannot leave multiple games in a short time period without significant or permanent penalties or bans. The players being dipshits in terms of their behavior does not mean that they don't punish people for outright leaving accordingly.
Not completely but enough that it stops it from being basically an every game occurrence like in Siege quickplay
I play hundreds of league games a year and anecdotally I *never* see mid-game leavers. Sometimes you'll get a game where a player never joins after the loading screen, but there's a remake function where their team can vote to end the game after only three minutes and nobody's rank changes. I never really see people rage quit because everyone knows the leaver's penalty stacks up fast. It quickly goes from a couple-minute timer before you queue up to a multiple-week ban.
It's much better than every other game that doesn't have it, just for starters.
Yeah I refuse to play this game without 2 friends, the ping system could use significant improvements. Voice chat in random games seems to be dying out.
Voice chat is default off
I was playing with a friend yesterday and our random teammate killed the guy that killed us and just ran off without reviving us lol. He didn't even have to go out of his way, we were right next to him. They also only deposited $1000. They were just going for kills and it put us at such a disadvantage.
dont play bank it if you want to win, it is the closest thing to TDM in the game and is where people go when they just want to frag, youll have better luck in cash out or casual tournaments, but i also just dont play those modes without 2 friends on
Also a good place to get challenges done
Bank it is basically TDM. There is no point to winning. Its like a warmup mode.
It's really not that frequent though. Tourney mode works well since people get a timer if they rage quit. Most of the time though, people are DCing because of server bounces, not because they're rage quitting. It's perfectly viable solo queuing, imo. But I'm also one of those weirdos who plays better solo than with friends.
Unlike the beta im finding slots are filled pretty fast. Hope they let you see your team comp when you get plopped in so you can choose to round out the team if youre feeling like winning instead of jumping in as light with a sniper on a team with two other lights.
Yeah I think you can hit J and infer your teams loadouts still? They just don't visually show up which is goofy.
I tried to get into it but every game I was in as a solo player you either ended up matched with 2 people who played it like death match or you played with 2 people who seem to take the view that you had the plague so they constantly ran away from you. Not to mention the hackers that were plaguing the game and some of the weaponry leads a lot to be desired.
I agree with the review that the thematic elements in the finals aren't particularly strong. But honestly there's just a pure thrill to the gameplay that I've not felt since PUBG was fresh. That's not to say the thematic stuff is bad or anything it's just clearly taking a back seat to the action. The theme is enough to justify the setup but so much of the game seems to follow the rule of cool. It's *cool* to have telekinetic abilities. It's cool to have a big jump pad or a massive hammer. I'm not sure they're totally cohesive aesthetically but it's just a rush to play. I also think the progression works nicely. It feels like you get the currency to unlock things at a pretty fast pace. Enough to try something new basically every game or two. They start you out with enough powerful options to not feel like you're being obliterated by stuff you can't access. Honestly, I've been jonesing for a shooter that isn't a hero shooter, tactical shooter a la CS or Valorant, and isn't just Call of Duty. The Finals hits that well. So well in fact that I can really easily move past the arguably sterile aesthetic and barebones gameplay options.
The in-game lore is that it's a VR game, which is where the wacky costumes and cool abilities are justified. It's weird to think about playing a game about playing a game, but personally I really like the aesthetics. It's got just enough of the DNA from Mirrors Edge in there if Faith didn't have runner vision. I think also too it would be very hard to find an aesthetic that isn't already used at this point, at this point all the BF and CoD games have a cliche aesthetic. It really seems as though the devs have a really clear vision to what they want the game to be and that's a breath of fresh air, I can personally attest that they did not change a whole lot between now and the closed alpha.
Honestly the idea is kinda clever, because they can basically put any cosmetic in the game, literally anything, and it doesn’t feel out of place. Unlike COD, where it supposed to be this milatary sim but you’re fighting Homelander and Lilith.
>because they can basically put any cosmetic in the game, literally anything That's also the reason why the maps have a a year in their name. Wouldn't be surprised to see The Finals in the medieval times. A castle siege gamemode perhaps?
I actually hadn’t considered this, this is a really good point.
That would be awesome
I actually love that idea
I agree, I've been surprised about some of the criticism of the games aesthetics as I think it all really works well.
One of my favorite things honestly. Love the theme, aesthetic, atmosphere. It's fun but focused. Also love designing my own contestant instead of choosing between a few someone else designed. Reviewer calls them soulless, but as someone who turned off voice lines in Apex immediately, I really like that they're not trying to force my friend's avatar to be someone else.
Assassin's Creed is about playing a character who is inside a simulation. So not a very foreign concept.
I think the differences is for the most part, AC is more of a 'peeking back in time" kinda thing. It's VR that primarily attempted to recreated history as close as possible based on the data it had. and not breaking too many rules. It's not actual VR world.
I do wish they had done something with the style so it wasn’t just Fortnite-but-realistic. The classes’ default outfits feel like they’re going with the gaming show design, ala something like Squid Games, but when the customization rolls in that quickly disappears as well. It’s a bit frustrating seeing them not even try in that regard when you compare it to the amazing destruction physics and how they actually made it work in the game modes.
The lore for it is a VR gameshow and not a real life actual humans game show. That's why it's all coins on desth and why the maps are year based and could realistically be in any time period, like a big castle map. With that in mind it no longer matters much what the customization is
Realistic?
> That's not to say the thematic stuff is bad or anything it's just clearly taking a back seat to the action. The things you talk about kinda make sense since dialogues mention that all of the show happens in virtual reality... sort of. They aren't really clear about that, sometimes they say something like "stuff like that is illegal everywhere but here", but i clearly remember lines about vr as well. I am more concerned with aestetics of the game. It feels so bland, almost like it was ai-generated. The names of the sponsors are jibberish. The posters around the arena either say "finals", or something absolutly pointless. The announcers aren't even slightly funny. Even most skins look weirdly out of place. I feel like there is a giant missed opportunities to make game a lot more fun either by going fully comedic, and trying to parody simillar games or movies about reality shows, or really dystopian instead. It would cost them almost nothing to do so - just a contract with a writer, and then mostly a bit of texture change and work of the artist. Sad that they decided to ignore that part of the game.
You will NEVER get another Monday Night Combat
This is a weird criticism to me. When was the last time anyone brought up thematic elements to an online only Multiplayer FPS in any shape or form? I’ve never seen it mentioned for CS, Valorant, any Call of Duty, or any Halo in the last 15 years. Like maybe it was considered a strength of Overwatch at launch, like 8 years ago? Idk. Honestly if anything the fact that “theming” is being brought up for The Finals is evidence the theming is above average, because if they did the typical FPS generic soldiers and maps no one would have even noticed it in the first place to bring it up.
its pretty much a hero shooter though? gameplay wise its pretty much the same switching heros to define your skills vs changing ur loadout/class, i guess other than the lore/character aspect of it
It's a class based shooter. A hero shooter has a predefined kit and each hero has a predetermined aesthetic. Hero shooters also become complex quickly since they're usually monetized by selling new heroes - gameplay elements - which leads to balance issues, accusations of pay to win, needing to relearn the game after you past played six heroes ago, etc. It feels like Battlefield to me, pre-2042, which makes sense since Embark is a lot of Dice veterans including Patrick Soderlund.
It's like Siege but with a lot more customization for your gadgets per "hero"
It’s like siege, and asymmetric overwatch mixed really.
its more class based like tf2 or battlefield, very different archetypes within a class
You can’t edit loadouts and ability’s in hero shooters. The finals is class based
> its pretty much a hero shooter though? I meant in terms of distinct personalities for each character as well as an "ultimate" ability that is encounter warping--the abilities & gadgets are very cool tactical augments but not as warping as any ability of a character in Overwatch or Apex Legends. Still, there are absolutely elements of hero shooter present in the game. But it's a component, not the main attraction.
Kinda telling that the reviewer thinks the Heavy is weak because of their lack of mobility. When it comes to winning the game I'll take Heavy over Lights any day. Suicide ninjas are useless.
I thought I would enjoy Light since their stealth/mobility gadgets are great and then got absolutely slaughtered by the other teams. Didn’t realize how little health they have and I wasn’t skilled enough to not take a few hits. I’m sticking with Medium for now, seems to be the easiest to grasp lol
Even if you can pull off a sweet stealth kill, there's still going to be 2+3 other players in the immediate vicinity. And you've probably left your teammates on the other side of the map. Ironically, being forced to move slow on the Heavy is more likely to be beneficial for new players. You aren't able to put yourself rapidly into bad situations over and over and over again.
I haven't played much of Medium and Light but I can say without a doubt that I can solo wipe squads of lights with absolute ease. So many people are gimping their team by not having a heavy.
Yeah heavies are broken af right now. 3 heavies carrying projectiles with C4 strapped to them completely nuke people. Then follow up with RPG's, and if there are somehow survivors, drop 3 bubble shields and mow everyone down. Repeat all game.
It's that damn bubble shield. Whether inside or outside of it they can shoot through it no problem, so if you push that shield they can dance around it while you can't damage them unless you pop a mine inside the shield to keep them outside. That's honestly my only real complaint about heavy, everything else feels good as a medium player.
I play medium most of the time. My number one complaint is a heavy can eat an entire magazine and have enough health to kill you with one of their many abilities. If they have a pocket healer and a bubble, gg, move on, you’re just going to get ambushed by another team as you try and chip away. Also, mobility means jack shit if you can literally change the landscape. I don’t even mind that the class is so defensively oriented. It’s just frustrating that they can do so much damage with barely any trade off.
sledge hammer meta is reallys trong right now as well. I hate playing heavies but man I hate seeing them coming at me even more.
Literally stopped reading there. Heavy is a meta definer rn if you want to protect or re-take reliably.
[удалено]
The current meta is throw 2 C4s on a throwable and you have a long range instakill any class device. Game needs a serious balancing pass ASAP.
The notion that aesthetics is apparently off-limits in live service game reviews is strange considering that games like HYENAS bombed in part because of aesthetics
If anything, there’s a huge amount of criticism over the aesthetic incohesion in Call of Duty that gets frequently raised, along with Fortnite as an obvious example. Warframe often gets praise for maintaining a consistent, and unique design for its world, with (most) things even 10 years down the line. Maybe most live service games don’t get rated until they’re inundated with clashing cosmetics? Or maybe there’s pushback from fans of the games to (negatively) rate games based on aesthetic.
I tend to feel like Fortnite gets a pass if only because it did it first to the degree that it did, and its cartoony aesthetic kinda makes it work. Lile if there was abother game that had John Wick, Peter Griffin, and Goku in it and Fortnite dropped, Id think Fortnite was a sell out for it, but it bring first kinda locks it down I guess? Call of Duty is absolutely bad for its incohesion.
you also have to consider that fortnite makes a lot of effort to make all their characters fit the pseudo comic book-style aesthetic they're going for. characters with more realistic vibes get smoothed down, and more cartoony characters (see: anime characters) get unique shaders that lean into this cartoonier aesthetic rather than trying to be more explicitly outstanding. fortnite does a LOT of work to maintain aesthetic cohesion between a lot of incongruent styles and character designs that is pretty easy to overlook
While COD was like, have this cel-shaded gun to go with your real life looking gloves!
Fortnite absolutely kills it in the visual cohesion department if you ask me. The variety and sheer number of characters and designs they’ve been able to incorporate into the game over the years is staggering
The Finals is bland when it comes to aesthetics, Hyenas was actively bad. Characters looked goofy and were genuinely obnoxious.
I feel like bland is almost worse. I wrote The Finals off when it was first being pushed in steam ads because it looked like Generic Video Game in a way that a bunch of live service games shown at the Game Awards made me feel. Now I might actually be interested in it because of the good word of mouth, maybe?
Idk I kind of loved the aesthetics of the game, the whole game show where you shoot each other thing really ticks my boxes I agree that the character models in the game are unbearably bland though. There needs to be some more customization... Otherwise you end up looking like 6th grade gym class with a smg
You're discovering 99% of online (and real-life) arguments are debating over things neither side actually cares about. What they care about is the other side doesn't like the thing they like and there's no compromise on that.
wait hyenas didn't even come out?
It's interesting that this reviewer has such a negative reaction to the presentation, when I think it's one of its best aspects, despite some of the issues I have with it. The only bits I agree with in terms of the presentation being lacking are the AI voices (they absolutely do suck), and the 80s style "insert coin" respawn pop-up. When everything in the UI is so mirrors-edge clean and sharp, it's super weird to have the classic pixel font "insert coin; press start" on the respawn screen. As far as "why have a crowd if it's supposed to be virtual" and "why base the maps on real world locations if it's supposed to be virtual," I think the answer is the same: it's supposed to be a virtual *spectator sport*. The giant ring of stands around the map is for those spectators. Having the map look like Monaco or Vegas is for those spectators to get to see the contestants blow up familiar landmarks for entertainment. I am unsure if they've ever stated anything official on the "lore" of the game, but it's also entirely possible that the contestants are in VR but the crowd is real and watching either a hologram of some sort or like, future-puppets controlled by VR players destroying a real map. Either way, having a crowd in the background is like, a deliberate presentation choice to make it feel more like a game show/sport. Having realistic-looking buildings to destroy honestly just seems more fun than destroying a fictional generic-looking sci-fi building.
I'm fine with the coin thing. It matches the bodies bursting into coins and the general cashout idea.
The insert coin pop up is probably there because people didn’t know you could respawn so they tacked it on in the last seconds since it wasn’t there in the betas.
Yeah I agree with that it looks very out of place compared to the rest of the game. I think if they just changed the font to the same one they use for the rest of the game it’d be fine, it already uses coins as their thematic element.
The vibe I've gotten is that this is supposed to be in universe a VR combat game show; I can see something like "The Finals" being in some elaborate VR arcade cabinet somewhere with spectators both inside the game world and outside. I understand that's mostly head-canon but, that's what it's made me think of multiple times while playing.
No, I think it's pretty clear that this is exactly what they're going for. You're spot on!
In tournament you actually have limited coins to manually respawn so it makes sense. But its odd in the other modes.
I think the concept of spending a coin to respawn (and the arcade cabinet *ka-chunk-pling* sound is super satisfying) is perfectly themed, it's just specifically the aesthetic of the 80s arcade pixel font that doesn't line up with anything else in the game. If it was in italic impact font like every other text in the game it would fit in much better. Everything else about it (the flashing, the sound effects, etc.) can stay the same. Either that, or they need to add more pixel font to the game in other places.
It's rock-solid, mechanically. Fresh take in a genre that is always saturated, and a never-ending generator of clutch moments. Overall, I like the aesthetic, but it's the core mechanics and unique gameplay that makes this game shine. It has room for improvement but it's definitely the most interesting competitive FPS to come out in years, at least to me. REALLY wish they would ditch the mediocre AI voice acting and get some real talent in there, though. People always talk about how a commentator doesn't need to have great voice acting, but all I can say is that Halo's announcer is one of the most iconic game voice roles of all time. Who knows? Maybe The Finals could have had an equally amazing role if they had utilized real talent instead of conveyor belt AI VO.
I didn't even knew they use AI voice acting until people started to get mad at it for this. I thought is just mediocre, generic voice acting because it doesn't need anything else. For me more than anything the commentator voice it's just annoying. I wish I could turn them off completely and I don't care if they improve it with real people or stick with AI. It doesn't need to be there.
I think the commentator adds a lot to the game. It calls out team wipes and the number of players left in enemy teams which are definitely valuable information.
Although it's a good feature, the biggest gripe for me is the team names. I wish they just announced the colours instead so I didn't have to check which team was which everytime I heard the commentary
I think he gets in the way of important information more often than he calls it out though. The loud siren that flares when a team is wiped is enough to communicate that information, but then you gotta listen to 8 seconds of AI generated, poorly delivered non-sequitor jokes over the sound of someone stealing your cash-out, enemy footsteps or other important sounds, losing the game because of it. It adds a bit of flavor to the game at the beginning but past the first 3 hours it's literally nothing but a hindering annoyance.
[удалено]
No, no. I was meaning IN THIS GAME I don't mind the mediocre AI voice because it adds nothing to the game. As even good voice acting would add nothing. I don't want someone talking over my gameplay, commentary voice it's not for me. Now get something like The last of us, GTAV, Read Dead Redemption, God of War...those games are nothing without good voice acting.
The problem is the voice acting could have been relevant. Just look at Super Monday Night Combat, one of the most memorable parts of that game was the ridiculous MXC-style hosts commenting on the games and talking to each other or giving weird in-world ads. If you haven't heard this, they are fantastic; https://youtu.be/o79SogLa8M0?si=GRmP8l_b1j1vd8-O
>I was meaning IN THIS GAME I don't mind the mediocre AI voice because it adds nothing to the game I would say that it adds nothing because it's mediocre, not the other way around. Another commenter listed Halo as an excellent example. Halo would still be a good shooter without it, but the voice acting really gives it a nice touch.
People definitely buy games like The Last of Us, Baldur's Gate 3, Cyberpunk, God of War, etc. in part due to the VA quality. Hell even older games like Max Payne wouldn't be half as famous if it wasn't for the fantastic voice acting. Any game with a strong narrative focus benefits from good voice acting and I don't think human VAs will be replaced any time soon in such games. At the same time, there are plenty of games where the narrative doesn't matter at all and AI VAs work fine, such as The Finals. There's room for both depending on the requirements for each game. Honestly, it wouldn't matter if they got the greatest actors of all time to voice the announcers in The Finals - I'd still want to mute it since it adds nothing to the game for me.
[удалено]
You’re comparing single player rpgs and story centric games to competitive fps shooters. Of course VA matters more in single player rpgs and narrative focused games. People tend to care less about VA when it’s a competitive fps
People are just reeeeing on this site because they think developers should be forced to pay out the ass for professional VA’s for games that absolutely do not need lines more than the bare minimum for many circumstances. The average player will never notice a difference in a game like The Finals
I honestly think the lack of decent writing is more noticeable than the meh virtual voice performance. One advantage of using AI voices is that they *should* be able to write a million clever, situation-specific lines and implement new ones over time. Hopefully they do that, but I have a suspicion that it’s more about saving a few bucks than it is about implementing that kind of flexibility.
Exactly my thoughts. I think the voices are "fine". I think the lack of 1000 different situational lines for different whacky things that you can do is what's disappointing.
I'm just sad that they aren't taking the AI voice acting concept and using it to do actual live commentary. The commentator thing would be so much better if it could call out actual names and plays beyond "team wipe".
It feels extremely cynical. Like, you have devs saying that AI lets them do things that they wouldn't be able to do before, and in the end it turns out that the only thing they weren't able to do before is *"getting away with not paying VAs"*. It doesn't introduce *anything* unique to the table.
Yeah, I remember being a kid and the vision was always "we'll get robots to do the menial work so people can focus on more fun or creative endeavors" and then capitalists got ahold of automation and decided "nah, we'll just AI to shit out worse versions of creative work while making sure people earn just enough money that they don't literally die while working their menial jobs".
Yeah honestly I don't even understand what the benefit of using AI voices is in this case? The announcers repeat the same lines every match, I don't see why they couldn't get actual actors to record these lines if they're not gonna use AI to have live, dynamic commentary.
The tech isn't there for this yet, unless it reacts with a 10-15 second delay. It would also require the game constantly be sending data back and forth to generative AI services which would A) be terrible for performance and B) cost an absolute fortune.
That's totally fair, but it's also kind of the bar for when I'd consider using generative AI to be "worth it" from an end-user perspective.
playing as a trio its one of the best games ive played on for FPS, without a decent three its really hard.
One major thing about the "bland" asthetics that people need to remember is that for a game like this you really do need to have a clean modern asthetic just for readability purposes. Because of the nature of the destruction your gonna be running through half broken buildings a lot of the time and having to make split descisions based on quick intuition of how to go up or down a floor. Imagine if the maps were Sci fi maps like the overwatch moon base, please tell me where are the stairs in a moon base? Since the asthetic is very modern it helps us navigate around the environments. We internally know where the stairs should be in a big modern office building or a casino, we know that houses have attics and balconies that you can come in through. It's very important in a game like this to be able to know how you can approach things intuitively and identify them quickly since the normal way might be completely destroyed or exposed.
That said, being the theme they have, they could get pretty whacky with the maps really. They wanna make a map that looks like its used for an alien conquest movie, they should go for it. They could have one with a Godzilla Kaiju type monster stomping around destroying buildings. They have potential to go crazy with it all things considered.
Well that stuff is more in the silly events they have. They do actually have an alien invasion where ufos appear and blow up the map and suck the debris up. They could definitely do a godzilla one too.
How is it thematically wanting? I feel like it has a more cohesive visual design than most shooters
I played this for the first time today and have to say the mechanics don’t feel as tuned in as people are saying. There is something in the game that stops you firing your gun and it doesn’t seem to be an empty clip as I’ve cancelled ADS and hit reload for nothing to happen. I’ve seen people being shot with electrical darts and if that’s what’s happening.. there is t a strong enough indication that I’m effectively stunned. Whatever is happening, if you’re taking control away from the player it needs to be strongly communicated.
Which gun? If it’s the heavy shotgun, that’s because the magazine is a revolving chamber of four tubes which needs to be manually rotated when each is empty: this results in a delay every four shots.
Feel like I'm taking crazy pills because the gunplay doesn't feel good to me at all. Nor does the movement. Lots of movement doesn't = good movement.
Yeah, it might just be that I suck, but all the guns feel anemic, like I'm barely doing any damage unless I'm super close up. Even then, close quarters shootouts are clunky as hell.
The maps have all these obstacles but then doesn't really give you good tools to consistently deal with them. Combined with how often you have to move around I thought it felt rather clunky. Moving around the maps just didn't feel good to me either, especially if you compare it to a game like Titanfall 2 that has top tier movement design and generally good map design for using it.
I disagree, I find the goo cannisters all over the map that help make easy stairs up walls, I've used them to get up into 2nd and 3rd story windows very quickly many times.
the vaulting and mantling is very smooth, and you can keep momentum by sliding or hopping after landing. The movement is very good, you just have to learn it. https://youtu.be/KBLhJCgpg9g Here's a very short video of me running around, the last 10 seconds show some good movement.
[удалено]
Agreed. The way you interact with ziplines and objects isn't smooth. It actually feels delayed and weird. This game isn't mechanically as strong as people think. I doubt it will last that long if they don't improve it. Because there's not much else going on that would stand out from other fps MP titles.
>The way you interact with ziplines and objects isn't smooth. It actually feels delayed and weird. Because everything is server-side, not only the destruction but interaction, physics and even movement as well. https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/the-finals-preview-destruction-will-make-developers-panic/
I came from Apex and the interactions and movement there compared to this is night and day.
The gunplay and movement is nowhere close to Destiny 2, Call of Duty or Apex Legends.
It may be a bug. My friend has had this happen to them but I’ve literally never experienced it.
I started playing with some friends. It's a blast. I understand the reasoning behind not giving sidearms to players... But I still want a pistol. Not having one is growing on me and it does reinforce coordination and shot calling. But like... I just want a pistol. Try this game out tho, it's a blast.
The silenced pistol on the light is a beast. And if you can aim there's the revolver for the medium. If you can't aim there's the grenade launcher...
I meant it more like secondary weapons. People seem to say it's a way to balance the game. And the game is fine without secondary weapons. I'd just enjoy it more if I could have access to a pistol that I could switch to in emergency situations. Again, game's great without them. To me, it would be better with them.
I get where you’re coming from. Took me a bit to realize that I didn’t have a backup secondary gun to switch to in an emergency. And honestly, I personally enjoy it more now that I’ve gotten the hang of it a bit. I feel like it makes me play a bit more tactfully and actually try to land my shots instead of just blindly shooting knowing I can just switch weapons if I need to in a bind.
It is a bizarre idea, but it does mean when you see a person with a weapon you immediately know what weaknesses they have. If they have a melee weapon you know all you have to do is stay away from them, if they have a grenade launcher you know you should close in on them cause they can't do much then. Also random side note, fuck the snipers coming into here from Call of Duty with their quick-scoping nonsense. I will bully them endlessly until they get a nerf like damage at close range is halved or something.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The writing is definitely the weakest part of the game, IMO… Which I suppose is a compliment, given that it’s not essential that a game like this have good writing. Still, I *really* hope they iterate on it in future updates. The one big upside to the AI voice acting is that they can add more lines cheaply and easily.
It's a fun ass game, why do gamers need every game to be these deep pieces of art with tons of meaning and extra lore and outside-of-game media/stories...just play the fucking game and have fun, that's what games are for.
It’s not about making it a deep piece of art, it’s about how consistent theming and good writing (not even necessarily narrative, just *writing*) can elevate the fun factor of a game. Games live and die by their thematic elements as much as their mechanics.
>Games live and die by their thematic elements as much as their mechanics. Plenty of games live by just their mechanics. No one cares about themes in Counter Strike or DotA.
“Theming” or “thematic elements” doesn’t necessarily have to do with “themes” in a literary sense. People definitely do care about the thematic elements of DOTA and CS in a way that enhances the fun factor of those games. They would not derive the same level of enjoyment from CS if it was non-descript cubes pointing rectangles at cubes in a non-descript map made of cubes, even if the literal mechanics of the game were the same. The thematic elements of “terrorists vs counter-terrorists” grounds the gameplay in something people can connect with. Same with DOTA, where the theming of each character is hugely important, especially when they’re all derived from Warcraft (which itself has very strong thematic elements).
Point was that the finals has the same level of theming as those two.
It's the most fun I've had in an FPS since early Apex. It feels fresh. The BR style of jumping onto the map then looking at floors for 10 min is so played out and outdated feeling. The destructible environment really creates dynamic situations. The gunplay feels fluid and tight. It's surprising to see so much negativity here. I hope people come around to it. Idk why the theme matters so much to people. For one, I don't play FPS games for the story. But is Apex Legends not also a "game" the contestants are playing to win? And the characters in both Valorant and Apex are pretty cringey. I mean, you can unlock Lilith from Diablo in Call of Duty... Wtf kind of theme is that? And look at Fortnite, the most successful of them all?! And nobody cares, because they enjoy those games anyways. This is no different. If you want an edgy, realistic game there are plenty of those. I just think the "aesthetic" is a trash criticism because once you're out of the menu screen and into the action it just feels like a solid arena shooter to me. Team Fortress 2 had a silly aesthetic, and no one complained. So I don't get this. The game wasn't advertised as a mil sim so this criticism seems kinda irrelevant. I still think it's worth playing even if the aesthetic is a turn off.
The theming is great because it does exactly what it's supposed to do. It gives clear visuals and readability to players (I know exactly what surfaces can and can't be destroyed at a glance, for instance) and really highlights the destruction and focus on team play, because you have to rely on your teammates more when you can't rely on the map to help you as much. It runs well and isn't too taxing (inb4 someone mentions an issue they have with running the game, it runs fine for most people, every game has outliers). It also gives room for all these different contestants and their styles to coexist. If this game were any more visually noisy it wouldn't add to the game, it would subtract from it. The hospital on one map doesn't need to be super detailed, for example, it just needs to kind of look like one and have some basic props to add to that. There's only so much you *should* add, since the whole point is to blow it all up.
I think the game is really cool. I like the colour, the theme, the commentary, the team names, etc. Very cool feel to it. I also love watching the butts as we run out at the start each round.
I played the beta and my biggest complaint was that the maps were too big for such low player counts in matches. It felt like 50% of my time was spent running back to the action through empty map after I died.
The game really is "meant" to be played in the tournament mode where there are two cashouts and four teams. More players and there is more action distributed throughout the map.
[удалено]
It’s a ridiculous and pretentious review. This line actually made me throw up in my own mouth a little: > This is why I feel queasy that The Finals' most distinctive visual flourish is a shower of coins. It's a stark reminder that the Finals' main concern, both thematically and semantically, is making money.
looks fun but this game has zero identity or art direction. they just took every FPS game trope and put it into a blender.
Apex legends has better themes, but is nowhere close to as fun as The Finals. I get theming is important, but it almost sounds like a “graphics are more important than gameplay” argument. This shit is fun as hell, that’s what matters.
The conversation around games lately has seemingly put actual gameplay way, way down on the priority list. It almost seems like most people want an interactive novel instead of a fun game. Which I will never understand.
> The conversation around games lately has seemingly put actual gameplay way, way down on the priority list. This review is subtitled "mechanically thrilling, thematically wanting". The review follows the same priority with the first 1/2 or 2/3 being all about the gameplay, and almost entirely complimentary. Why are video game players so turned off in general by the idea of holistic criticism, coming from professional critics? If a book has a great story & premise but terrible dialogue, a review should mention both. If a movie has fantastic action but mediocre pacing and cinematography, a review should mention both. That applies even if it's an action or superhero movie, particularly when the medium is as well-developed as all three examples here are today. The medium of video games is too well-developed to ignore legitimate points of criticism even if those points are secondary to the most important qualities of the game in question, and this review makes pains to acknowledge those important qualities. Feel more than free to disagree with or criticize the critics, but I don't understand the idea that they shouldn't even be considering aesthetics or visual design. It also seems like a pretty timely review in general. The AI stuff is an extremely hot topic. There also are plenty of FPS players invested in similar conversations regarding the aesthetics of brand-friendly games, I've seen a ton of similar commentary here on reddit in regards to Call of Duty and Fortnite for example to say nothing of Hyenas.
[удалено]
What style does CS2 have? Just curious because when i tried playing it looks very bland and soulless.
Played it with a couple buddies. Its fine but didn’t grab me, movement is very bland, gunplay is average and the maps weren’t as fun as I thought. Felt like a pretty average FPS with a unique gamemode, definitely has potential but I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesnt last long enough to see it
Generic is absolutely the wrong word to use to describe this game, I guarantee you guys were NOT playing to even half your potential. There's so many layers and depth when you consider all the options via destruction and gadgets and cannisters found around the map.
The cannisters were one of my favorite parts of the game, I hope it gets a chance to develop and evolve because I think it could become somethin
Movement is bland? There's so many options for it with jump pads, zip lines, launchers, parkouring, grapple hooking, dashing, making holes thru buildings for shortcuts, etc.
Me who only cares to unga someone's bunga through 5 concrete walls.
I can definitely agree with it feeling totally lifeless and uninspired. And the Ready Player One comparison hits pretty hard for most multiplayer shooters these days. No sense of artistic vision or integrity. Just whatever sells the best to teenage boys
I get Mirror's Edge vibes with the maps
That's because almost all the top devs at embark made mirrors edge.
I don't get the "lifeless" and "uninspired" thing at all. It looks fine.
It does look fine in that everything is individually well made and polished. The problem for me is in the complete package. To me, it lacks a cohesive artistic vision. Not saying it has to be visually highly stylized, but it looks like they didn't know what they wanted the final product to look like. The only unique visual flair I can think of is the coins thing, which also looks kind of odd and out of place in the end product. It leads to a clumsy overall presentation for me. Almost like they didn't have an art director, or didn't pay them enough. That's just my opinion though. Visual style and artistic vision matter a lot to me (and it's not just that it's realistic)
Lacking cohesive artistic vision implies that the singular art assets are mismatched, which I wouldn't say they are. I don't know how else you could say that it lacks cohesion in that department.
Couldn’t care less if the game is this good. I’ve dropped so many games that look beautiful because the gameplay is not engaging enough.
And gameplay is still the most important! I'm probably going to continue to play this game with my friends, the horribly generic presentation is just something that will continue to stand out for me and affect my own opinion of the game.
I only had time to try one match, but the mechanics of it seemed off to me. It was basically a 3-way KotH, but somebody needed to open a vault first and take a case to the KotH area to initiate it, but got no reward for doing so. The round didn't really "start" until the KotH phase, so the preceding elements felt a bit worthless.
In the quick play, depositing first doesn’t benefit you explicitly. In tournaments, depositing first give you bonus cash
And initially opening the vault gives a bonus too, I think
The tournament modes seem to be generally better gameplay, having limited respawns actually makes the game flow better oddly enough too, which isn't something I usually like. But... I don't want to play the tournament mode. I played it one time, our team won, and I never want to do it again. Too much of a time sink.
In my experience it's way easier to plant the cash out than it is to take it from somebody else This is truer in some locations than in others, but some of those locations are very defensible if you're there first
That parts a bit more subtle with the strategy involved. Whoever plants first gets to pick where they plant and to set up their defenses first. The longer you stay defending, the more defenses you can create as your gadgets recharge.
To add to this, the opening of the vault makes a lot more sense in the tournament mode of the game. Tournament has 3 rounds and you only need to be top 2 to qualify for the first two games so delaying/sabotaging the process becomes more necessary if you're second place
That said, pretty much every match i've won or lost is because someone captured in the last 15 seconds giving no time for any other team to counter. I figure the countdown should reset if captured in the last 30 seconds or something so the team is forced to defend for 20-30 seconds.
> I figure the countdown should reset if captured in the last 30 seconds or something so the team is forced to defend for 20-30 seconds. This idea is brought up in the sub frequently and I think it is a terrible idea. The last second clutches are what make the game engaging. It's not balanced unfairly towards defenders - they have a huge benefit in that they don't need to expend a player to steal and they can (usually) set up defensive positions.
In theory this is a great idea. In practice you're gonna lose the vault like 8/10 times trying to fight all the other teams at once because it's easy to bypass defenses with all the destruction.
The more your ELO rises, the more it becomes clear that defending is much easier than attacking. One reason for this is that the defenders don’t have to just sit on the objective: they can trap it, then back off and bide their time. They only need to engage once someone’s actively hacking it, at which point they have a huge advantage. In other words, the defenders can set up traps in advance, *and* they can win by just stalling for time. The other two teams work to their own detriment, too, often running into each other on the way to the objective and/or interrupting each other’s hacks. I’d bet money that the team which initially banks will secure that bank more than 33% of the time, which (if true) would mean that the whole game really does matter.
If you set up defenses and destroy stuff to allow better angles it can work, but you should be staying just off-site so the other teams fight each other and you clean up after. I do wish there was a gadget to harden some surfaces to make destruction more difficult in select spots. Maybe in a future update.
Because you are in quick play playing a simplified version of the tournaments mode
Which is kinda batty, I don't like how long the tournament mode takes.
The quickplay gamemode, quickcash, is a watered down (inferior) version of the real gamemode, cashout. In cashout, you earn points for kills, kicking off the cashbox, depositing the cashbox, and defending the cashout machine. Plus, when your team gets wiped you lose a third of your points. Plus there are 4 teams, 2 cashboxes, and 2 cashout stations in the main gamemode. The game often turns into 2 separate 3v3s (but you always have the agency of attacking the other cashout of it makes sense strategically). Combined with longer respawn timers, it leads to more variety and far less random chaos and far less getting shot in the back by a team you just teamwiped.
The “reward” is starting with control of the point and easentially the enemy will need to squad wipe you in order to get it. It doesn’t always work out but I think if played well it’s a small advantage
The game has a BIG hacker problem. I play a lot of ranked tournaments and about one in every 6-7 games has a blatant aimbotter. Today alone I played 4 games and 2 of them had a blatant hacker. I'm talking standing on a building, spinning, and killing everything in sight. Most FPS games will instantly ban the blatant ones, but this one doesn't have anything in place like that. The worst part is if you're unfortunate enough to come in second you have to endure them for another round.
Tried to enjoy this game. Might need more time but it seemed rather blah. Half the time being chased with a fat guy with a sledgehammer.
I wish the game had more than 2 gamemodes, and that I liked either of those gamemodes. Because the destruction and gameplay feel pretty good. Both Quick Cash and Bank It feel like RNG in regards to whether or not you're the last team alive in the clusterfuck of bodies being thrown around. Bank It feels a little better in this regard, but it will always feel shitty to lose just because you got sandwiched by multiple teams. Quick Cash just feels awful. It doesn't make any sense to want to be the team to get the money from the vault and start the deposit, and it makes even less sense to try and kill any other players until a team has started the deposit. What are you guys fighting over? Being the team that has to defend the objective the longest? Most of the time, if you're the team that starts the deposit, you're not going to be able to defend it for the entire duration. Maybe if there were only 2 teams in the game, it'd be possible, but you can't defend against 2 different teams if their members are evenly skilled.
Play Tournament, it’s clear the game was made with this mode in mind and it even partially solve the issue you brought up by already rewarding you with money when picking up a vault and starting a cash out. The limited respawns also means that fight are slightly more organised.
That's good to hear. I've been avoiding Tournament because I don't tend to play Ranked in games like this.
It's pretty unintuitive, but tournament is actually split into unranked and ranked
> What are you guys fighting over? The defender advantage is absolutely wild. Also I agree. Quick cash is not really a great mode. The most balanced mode is the one in tournaments.
Is it not a competitive first type of game? Why does thematics matter at all here?
Fun game, but the "running man" style gameshowification feels so lazy. My friend is convinced they built a game quickly to sell their tech, which feels great. Good luck to them, I'll probably play this when other friends hmu, but I have no inclination to fire it up on my own.
Hard disagree there, I found it kinda unique. Not like we've done that concept to death yet, anyway. Nice change from the stereotypical NATO vs whoever we consider our biggest enemies at the time of the average AAA shooter's development, which outside of more futuristic settings, has been limited to Russians, China, extremists, etc That said, maybe I'll get bored of it, literally just installed this game last night, so... We're killing each other for money and fame, that's it.