Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


mango_man last won the day on May 26 2014

mango_man had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

199 Excellent

About mango_man

  • Rank
    BF3 IVG Blood Rush Tourney Winner
  • Birthday 08/19/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3648 profile views
  1. mango_man

    Battlefield V

    Oh boy.. all this Movement 2.0 stuff 'roll on the ground shooting' etc are making me more nervous about this game. Traversing the environment and mantling over obstacles etc is a shitshow in battlefield games since forever now with little to no fixing. Even laying down a med kit or ammo kit on the surface takes so many attempts if one is prone or in an even slightly tricky terrain. That 'bipod only' rocket launcher thing in bf1 was a nightmare to use cuz of terrain glitches, it was never clear where you could lay down the bipod and use it.. especially when crouched. 1cm to the left it would work but move 1cm more and NOPE, even when the ledge/terrain you are placing it on is exact same for multiple feet. Just f**k off with all these gimmicks Dice and fix all the janky 'advanced control' sh*t thats already plaguing the game since bfbc2 and bf3 days.
  2. mango_man

    Battlefield V

    Joe has a console since forever now. I already know that. But he is not into Shooter PVP and why should he be since he is already into PC MP which is obviously better and more precise. And even if he started controller shooter PVP now he will struggle a LOT.. some of it because of lack of practice with a conntroller and MOST of it because of the awkward right stick controls. He will struggle A LOT MORE in BF though with all its fked up frame rate issues and super long range combat and the extent to which all of its (un)manageable with the handicapped movement speed of the right analag stick and its imprecise fine tune adjustment. THATS my point. When a game's design, it big scope.. and marketing gimmicks combine and fail, becoming a chore because of the limitations and handicaps of the hardware it sells most on. I acknowledge the fact thats its 'just how it is'.. its stupid still. Btw what joke? You or Joe or any PC PvP player for that matter, not knowing intricacies of a console+controller PVP experience was not meant as an insult. Just a fact, due to you people not having spent 100s of hours in said environment.
  3. mango_man

    Battlefield V

    I am talking of consoles only. How many times do I have to repeat that lol. There was nothing like TF2 and others on consoles... PVP wise. Nothing as polished and refined and well executed as Overwatch. I keep forgetting you and Joe know none of the intricacies of gaming on consoles or its shooter PVP side. Why are you spewing general knowledge like its making a point? We all know Overwatch was not a new thing(but was on consoles pvp scene)... and seige was fked up in the start. My point was that creatives CAN figure out new or better ways to design amazing pvp games based on the limitations of their biggest consumer segment's hardware-WITHOUT making them clones of COD and OW. Whether that happens through inspirations from prior games (OW with TF2 n the likes) or with constant evolution after a f**ked up release(Seige). Come on man. Just as a reminder AGAIN, I am talking strictly from the perspective and for the benefit of standard Console players. May be try and stop boxing me in the 'headless chicken runnner gunner' category and try to understand what I am saying? I DONT MIND long range shooters IF they are done right at a stable framerate and clarity of visuals and gameplay design that is carefully created for the underpowered mass market console hardware and inaccurate controllers that literally enables said game to get made in the first place. I am not even saying such consoles are infact the right way to for gaming to thrive... may be PC is.. or something that hasnt been invented yet.. but since for now we are stuck with these puny consoles.. logic says build FOR IT. Controllers suck. But we are stuck with them till the next evolution in 'input controls for the couch' arrives. This so called next gen is all about dlcs and loot boxes combined with some ridiculous marketing gimmicks that are runing core gameplay experiences for its largest consumer segment- console peasants. Atleast in the PVP arena.
  4. mango_man

    Battlefield V

    Op metro was just 12 v 12 players on PS3(or was it 32.. cant remember correctly) and so very manageable. There were some chokepoints near central flag but due to lower player count it infact wasnt that bad. In Rush mode it was better specially on 1st and 4th Mcoms IIRC. Cant speak of PC.. might have been a nightmare with 64 players. Again, dont hold my 'bf3 did well to some extent' line so closely.. bfbc2 was where the scope and scale of the game felt JUST RIGHT for us controller and underpowered hardware console plebs trying to awkwardly aim with our right sticks. So you really have to understand the problems of right analog stick aiming- to understand how pathetic aiming at long distances and shooting at single pixel sized far away enemies can be. There are deadzone and acceleration issues.. sometimes games dont have the simple option of varaiable sensitivity when zoomed in(D2 for example).. nor do they compensate for that by a default setting. There is so much more that I cant explain and you wont fully comprehend unless you have logged in 100s of hours with controller PVP shooters. So yea.. its not like game designers are oblivious to this. But unless it isnt 'bigger and more crazier' than the last game its not good enough for marketing. But the pity is all that big sope and war sim scale happens at the cost of gameplay and realtime drop in fps. Add to that blurry textures.. bad draw distances and anti aliasing and you have got a nauseating experience FOR ALL OF THEIR BIGGEST CONSUMER BASE. As I said.. most people be may be apathatic or ignorant to all this but then again most people are oblivious to intricate thought anyways and will just shrug and move on. I dont want large scale TDM. I want a smooth gameplay experience. A game design and scope of battle that is based in the reality of current gen consoles' horsepower and controller limitations. Which also happen to be their biggest consumer segment. So good business logic wants it too. You are right in saying high fidelity 40fps jittery graphics and buildings falling into a glitchy rubble is STILL better for marketing than 'this is the best experience we could muster for our biggest market segment'... but hey one can hope that logic prevails. And in anycase, just because a wrong thing wont change doesnt mean we cant still point out its absurdity. That is just not true. The fact that something like Overwatch happened is proof. If you were to write the same line before overwatch released you would have just cited CSGO or Seige in place of it with COD- to make your point. But then Overwatch would have happened.. foreever expanding the gamut of possibilities for PVP shooters. Creativity thrives in limitations. But if you want me to invent the next big thing to prove this point I wouldnt be here writing this paragraph. So yea, if games like BF wont serve their biggest consumer base based on their hardware limitaions- with a smooth and better thought out gameplay experience, then its all upto marketing gimmicks and the hype train to sell copies.. but lose players post release, which is never good.
  5. mango_man

    Battlefield V

    And so a game, every game, should be designed so as to either give a near stable 60 or atleast smooth 30.. scale, scope and graphics must come second. In PVP. If thats what it takes. Or else design for the largest playerbase which also happen to have the least hardware horsepower and handicapped accessibility with controllers. It is not chore when you are shooting at medium to semi-long ranges with a controller. But beyond that its a problem of hardware limitations- that how tiny your opponents' hit box is and how much of a fine adjustment the right analog stick allows you to make while firing.. no matter how skilled you are. Millions will disagree with the fact that its a jittery 40fps mess? Or with the fact that shooting long distances with right stick while in that 40fps mess is a problem? Or the fact that when the building fell on shanghai in bf4 it became glitchy to traverse that area? The degree to which they may or may not care about it can vary depending on their ignorance or apathy. I said 'thats where they succeeded'- In the 'metric' of a balanced scope and scale for their game so as to have the maximum and smoothest accessibility on their biggest platforms. I never said the bfbc2s and bf3s didnt have their own problems. May be this super large scale glitch-mess of a 'buy a super pc u pleb'.. 'oh look that building fell so cool'.. '64 player chaotic war sim'.. is a not good idea for consoles after all. With its hardware limitations and controller handicaps and what not. I said BF3 'to some extent'. To elaborate i meant some of its smaller maps like grans bazaar.. op metro etc. Do I think med to med-long range pvp shooters are the most accessible with controller and console horsepower limitations with respect to balance in graphics-fps-gameplay? YES. Does that mean long range MP shooters should not exist? No. It means they need to do it in a better way by either sacrificing graphics or scope of the game- so as to have a smoother and manageable experience for their biggest consumer base.
  6. mango_man

    Battlefield V

    Its a game problem if it runs at a sub par and jittery 30-40fps with screen tearing on the platforms it sells most copies on and has the highest playerbase in(Ps4+X1). If your biggest market segment cant access your game at the standard quality of smooth 60fps or even a smooth locked 30fps then its not worth it. No matter how many buildings crash into a glitchy rubble of traversal nightmare or ships and trains wreck havoc with a gazillion smoke and fire effects, or how many number of players are running around the map. Either limit the scale of the game itself or sacrifice the graphics and game elements to give a smooth gameplay experience. As for controllers.. no its not always a chore with shooters. Its not a chore if you dont have to try and shoot at tiny pixels 500m away from the barrel of your gun with the inaccurate right analog stick and the whimsical autoaim. Add to that variable fps and its proper torture. Again you might say that its my problem but its not.. its a problem of accessibility of all standard console players who are also the game's biggest target consumers! You might not fully understand what I am saying because you may not have played PVP shooters on consoles with a controller, but all these little things add up and can either make or break the entire experience in PVP. Thats where BFBC2 succeeded. Even BF3 to some extent. And Overwatch. Even COD franchise by the same metric. Btw, I am strictly talking consoles here. P.S. I think 32 player operations was removed because of matchmaking problems and the ever shrinking playerbase.. also it wasnt searchable in server browser till recently which made it worse. 32 player operations was really good as it had a comprehensible amount of chaos, action and strategy.
  7. mango_man


    Yea it is fun. Thats why I said its a missed opprtunity. Its sooo shallow and has very passive gameplay. All this fun gameplay and wide tracks but nothing much to do. I mean almost 50% of the buttons on the controller arent bound to anything! The concept is good the core gameplay is catchy and pace is exhilirating..but thats it.. and even if they NOW in a hurry add a proper takedown mechanic and some side bash abilities with some powerups thrown in there then it can be saved. But they wont. $60 lol
  8. mango_man

    Battlefield V

    Haha yea very possible..
  9. mango_man

    Battlefield V

    I'm sick of shooting at pixels(far away opponents) in battlefield games. Bfbc2 had just the right scale of map and player count so that gunplay was always fun and impactful. There was always 1 chopper.. 1 tank or 2 sniper spots to counter against. It was kinda like overwatch.. but military. Battlefield nowadays has become like an uncontrollable sensory overload of sorts with really bad framerate and a chore with controller. In BF1 the best mode for me was 32 player operations.. but then they removed it in favour of its 64 player variant which was a chaotic mess- imagine 64 players fighting on the area the size of "1" rush checkpoint. Dont have high hopes from this one either.. they will just make it bigger and more chaotic with buildings falling on my head and air baloons crashing in my face, because marketing. f**k off. Bring back Bfbc! /rant
  10. mango_man


    Lol its almost +1 level per match. Game is like an idle clicker. Its sad really. Just keep Gas and boost pressed+ hit jumps+ hit ultimate around opponents occasionally- boom MVP. There is no real or clear car on car takedown mechanic and crashing into others is glitchy and a bad strategy for win anyways. Only your ultimate ability is the real ACTIVE offensive/strategic tool and they happen too far off, everything else is stupidly passive. What a huge missed opportunity!
  11. True. Gaming has lost its good vibes. The season pass and MTx doesnt bother me though as I buy-play-sell, never worrying about dlcs or MTx. CoD mp is just like an yearly indulgence in nostalgia and some good old shooting mechanics(like yours is with fifa). Never cared for its on rails SP so I'd gladly take BR for it. Zombies is meh but simply more of it is still better than the garbage recycled SP. But to be honest CoD WW2 did MTx really well. All dlc guns were available to everyone with minimal grind and only cosmetic weapon variants were in loot boxes which were again quite easily attainable by play(easier than overwatch, yea). Also there were plenty of gun camos and reticles etc that are easily unlockable which again makes MTx useless. Core gameplay loop is always fun with CoD if you like it. Mechanics are super on point(with controller) and its still one the best handling and smoothest shooter on console. Sharp 60fps. As for BR, CoD still has some of the best pure gunplay. If done right and fairly- CoD can have the strongest BR game mode cuz lets face it PUBG was always a glitchfest(and is still shitty on Xbox?) and fortnite is just plain simply not a good 'shooting game'. So yea, I'm optimistic.
  12. mango_man

    Days Gone

    Hmm high production value third person talky walky pseudo storytelling adventure game.. Sony exclusive?
  13. Thank god they did away with the campaign entirely and are adding more MP and Co-op stuff. I hope they even cancel the season pass bullshit so player base isnt segregated and I dont have to sell the disc (of every COD) after 2 odd months.
  14. mango_man


    Game could have been wayyy better if it had some "Blur" (game) like powerups. I love the 'its not a race' pitch but wish it had more to do while driving. Needs more combat! Controls are on point. Tracks are wide and fun but not 'great'. Game modes are quite unique but game doesnt explain them well or at all really and so everyone online is just 'racing' and being stupid. Has a 60fps mode thats quite stable and really makes a difference, but its not set as default. But perhaps the biggest downfall is that its $60. Should have been $30 or at max $40. It gives Rocket League vibes and even that only caught on when it went free on PS+, this could have taken that path may be. Fun though.
  15. Sure they do. But thats not my point. I meant the act of choosing one dialogue option over the other never really feels a meaningful act in itself.. instead just feels like a number of button presses required- in order to reach all the different endings/dialogue branches. Hurts more when the dialogue options are some obscure-concise version of what your character will actually say.. then you choose one such option and the character ends up saying something entirely different or, at best, vaguely similar.
  • Create New...