mango_man
-
Posts
4486 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by mango_man
-
-
6 minutes ago, ALPHA17 said:
Joe has a console now. Jokes on you.
Anyway, I doubt BattleField is going to reach your promised land anytime soon. So not going to argue further.
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.
-
39 minutes ago, ALPHA17 said:
Dude, Overwatch built on a ton of prior hero shooters which had all gone out of fashion by the time it rolled around. Also, if Overwatch would have been by some no-name developer, good luck trying to find its mass appeal.
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.
47 minutes ago, ALPHA17 said:Rainbow Six Siege had released in a much worse condition compared to Overwatch or BattleField and only with UBISOFT's obstinate backing of the studio has it reached where it has. Creativity does not thrive in limitations if that was the benchmark Destiny would still be on top of the charts these days. It is not.
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.
57 minutes ago, ALPHA17 said:Stop trying to introduce some 'nebulous' change in the franchise because it does not fit your idealised appeal.
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.
1 hour ago, ALPHA17 said:Oh! And on the count of poor control support, it is bad enough on PC that I do not want to imagine how it plays out with a controller.
So, #NEXTGEN is not so #NEXTGEN after all.
Seems like a perennial marketing problem that you guys face.
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.
-
2 hours ago, ALPHA17 said:
All the OP maps released till date for BattleField have been pointless meat grinders good for gaming the system and get fat chunks of XP payouts. The gameplay on almost all of them devolved into a terrible struggle over the central flag or spawn camping.
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.
2 hours ago, ALPHA17 said:Problem is most people do not have a metric of understanding or defining medium range combat? What is medium-range combat for you? Games like BattleField do not help either.
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.
2 hours ago, ALPHA17 said:Onto the last point, I would love you to define what scope of BattleField must be reduced to turn it into a large-scale TDM mode. I mean BattleField 1 pretty much did that and we got wonderful player retention going on. Graphics will be updated (incrementally, or generationally) because hey easiest to show that in promo material so yeah! that ain't changing either.
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.
2 hours ago, ALPHA17 said:Hehe! Dream on. If scale and scope are to be scaled back, all we will end up with is an itinerant bland soup of Overwatch and CoD clones.
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.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:
Because that's the max console hardware can take it...
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.
12 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:So people can complain more? Saying PC got large scale, we should also get one? Cry about a downgrade? etc,.
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.
15 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:It always is.
Not sure how suddenly sniping 500m away makes it an extra chore when Battlefield games were always big and 500m is common.
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.
23 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:Millions will disagree but sure. If it was a "common" problem, the PS4 wouldn't be the strongest Battlefield base at the moment.
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.
25 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:You are talking as if Bad Company 2 / Battlefield 3 didn't have issues on consoles. It was just less populated than it currently is and hence it was less noticed.
Overwatch and CoD are closed quarter shooters with less visually appealing and hence they perform well. Make it a large scale battle and you can compare.
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.
45 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:What? Battlefield 3 had some of the BIGGEST maps in the series.
From the looks of it, you seem to want CoD/OW style in Battlefield. That's what the series doesn't want.
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.
-
57 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:
How is that a game problem? If your system isn't good enough, then that's how it's going to be.
It's always a chore to play a shooter with a controller.
Because everyone cried that 32 is too little.
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.
-
19 minutes ago, Walker said:
I hope they don't really. It'll only be bfbc in name and I'd hate that. It's over.
Of course when it does I'll get suckered into it and I'll be disappointed.
Haha yea very possible..
-
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
-
1 hour ago, Joe Cool said:
Now you have $60 for MP/Zombies and BR + $60 for season pass + $$$ MTx for BR.
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.
-
-
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.
-
2 hours ago, quixote_1989 said:
Wait a minute, some of those dialogue options in witcher do determine the ending.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.
-
4 hours ago, Walker said:
Last night I finished the first chapter. Now I noticed along the way a lot of areas I could explore. Should I or is it not required. I mean will I miss a lot and will it affect the outcome.
@mango_man my L2 was modified for Battlefield so it works more like an on/off switch (reduced travel to 50%), by just placing a piece of cardboard between the button and the silicon contact. But I can definitely understand the issues you've outlined.
Haha yea that could work. I too had to do this workaround on my old controller. Not disassembling the new one though.
Btw dont skip optional areas or reduce difficulty. Dont know why hope did that. Its a once in a decade game, why rush? Explore everything and break all the barrels, do all side missions when the kid 'asks you to explore'.
P.s. Also exploring will give you a lot of cool powers for all your equipment. Else you will jist be using basic ones whole game I guess.
1 hour ago, kold_war said:You are just way too ocd ??✌ bro you don't find the controls optimal in every game lol
even in overwatch u changed the entire button layout of your controller Its settled then. OCD it is.
-
2
-
-
Is it just me or do all these 'choice' based games feel really phony to you guys too? I dont know know for you guys but for me there is just never any true coherence or real meaning behind choosing one dialogue option or the other out of the given dialogue options. Be it witcher, fallout, heavy rain or this... it all just feels extremely basic and forced. The timers on dialogues dont help either.. just another forced mechanic to give an illusions of high stakes gameplay.
-
Agree with all the hype and praise for this game.. but the FOV is so bad during combat. Also the controls are not optimal. Tbh I dont think there was a need to add a 'zoom' command on L2. Its a waste. Yes, I know there are many modifiers bound to combinations of pressong L2 but it still does not warrant a whole shoulder button bound to something that wasnt required. Sometimes I just wish that I could throw the axe with 1 button press instead of zooming first. Also the 'deadzone' on zooming is a bit too much. You cant feather L2 to zoom.. u have to press it more than 50% to BEGIN the zoom animation. Breaks the flow. Am I just OCD or is anyone else feeling all these things?
-
9 hours ago, hope said:
Looks bam average. This is gonna be so generic and seen all before stuff.
Looks and plays better than last guardian
-
4 minutes ago, Walker said:
I'll need to check how to disable certain assists then. Never tried lobbies so not sure. Tuning will be disabled tho.
22 would be a bit much yes. Maybe 10-15 depending on track.
Ya disable tuning. Infact a one make BOP'd event can be fun too.
Also if tyre wear and fuel multiplier settings can be tweaked then a race requiring to manage 2 pitstops could be fun too, instead of just increasing number of laps IMO.
-
31 minutes ago, Walker said:
I'm thinking we should make a lobby soon and do 22 lap races. No assists except for ABS.
Tracks:
Nurb GP
Maggiore
Suzuka
Brands Hatch
Yamagiwa+Miyabi
Monza
Dragon Trail
Interlagos
Panorama
Gr.3 only (open choice)
Tires : RH
Tire + Fuel wear
Penalties + Damage etc.
Should be fun. One race per weekend?
Sure but why 22 laps? Thats a bit too much. Rather have 2-3 timed or 10 lap races.. would be more fun and people would be able to join in even if they arrive a little late or disconnect etc.
Also dont ban assists except 'autodrive' one, I would suggest.
-
1 hour ago, hope said:
If you don't have much time for gaming then the current campaign should last long. I have barely completed 5% of it till now since launch day.Have you completed the campaign?
If you have a good SR rating, chances of reckless driver is pretty minimum and if you are making mistakes then its your driving fault.Learn more.
Try arcade mode, set long races, fuel and tyre depletion, professional AI and see how much fun it is. Lake Maggiore endurance like.
Old SP Campaign is not there and it won't be back. You if like the driving aspect then there are so many ways to have fun in GT Sport.
FIA Champ coming up, qualify for that
I didnt buy it. Played everything the beta had to offer though.
I didnt like the kind of SP in GT Sport . It just seems like short/long extremely strict and specific challenges and tests. Which is what it exactly is, and I get that, but I dont like it.
GT Sport just went a bit too far with this hardcore thing.. which is fine.. but I dont understand why they have to abandon the casual side altogether. Ah well, GT 7 maybe.. 2023 here I come.
-
This online focus has ruined this franchise for me. Really wanted this game but I hate playing racing games online cause its a all or nothing scenario there. Spend hours trying to set a good qualifying lap.. be in the top 5.. start race.. get spun out by a reckless driver or 1 small mistake.. hate the universe the rest of the 42 laps. This situation worsens cuz of general lack of time for playing games. I am more of a casual racer but I love sim racers as much as I love arcade ones. I dont know why they just couldnt create a normal SP campaign as well.. just make layouts of 100 normal races(not gruelling boring 10 sec tests) and spread them across different cars and tracks and time of day and let me drive! Hate creating my own races and then trying to beat them.
Forza is so good in that way. Forza horizon 3 also had an online racing mode where no one can hit each other (you ghost on contact), but all race live and at once. Add to that its great SP.
Just disappointed with GT sport.. more so cause I loved the driving and the aesthetic in beta despite the shortage of cars and tracks.
-
Full car list is tiny and meh.. Gameplay is super clean...infact a bit too clean and almost 'unexciting'. Controls are great. Graphics are great.
Feels like a prologue. :l
-
Huge respect for Mcgregor. Great fight. He was winning first 6 rounds. But ofcourse Mayweather was better in deeper waters. Both legends in their own regard.
-
Thanks hope & SA
-
Guys when does EPL new season start? And will I be able to watch all matches on Hotstar(free or paid?).
Also, does hotstar include live matches of other main leagues too? (Spanish, Italian, French)
-
Man Cormier was crying after the fight
Stakes were so high the whole fight felt like a nervous brawl... my hands were shivering and heart racing throughout with the excitement.. cant even imagine what the fighters were feeling like!
-
1
-
Battlefield V
in Games
Posted
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.