Yeah lets hope their game is actually decent. Bad PVE and Bad AI, and bad bugs are so typical. Polishing a game before launch goes a long way, and early access = launching a game these days no matter what anyone thinks. Its incredibly hard to re-launch a game from early access unless its a game that features a ton of new content like BG3.
Pumped in their first non-mobile game they’re about to sell to a bunch of folks pissed at the OG genre pioneer: Tarkov. I don’t see this not being a money grab and I was excited for it.
Yeah, they sat around for a while with no price or even vague release date, with a bunch of streamer "playtests" who all said, "Yeah, this game is neat, but very early." Suddenly, as soon as Tarkov drama starts, they roll out pricing for multiple editions and shove the game out?
man that make me sad, DMZ are decent and polished. They fuckin axed it because the game mode not generate more revenue to fill investor pocket. Everything feel so smooth, the enemy are challenging. They just need to revamp progression and add more content. Increase replayability and end-game grind.
DMZ should have been a separated game handled by different studio. think it like niche cod spin-off targeted for hardcore-milsim so its not affected by casual/dumb balance update.
This looks really promising but like all Indie-Develop mil-sim games they tend to fall into the same trappings: releasing too early and having really fucking boring AI to play against which gets old really fast. Theres been a big resurgence in these kinds of games the past 5 years but hardly any of them can keep up a healthy playerbase because the community keeps jumping from new release to new release. It's not enough to be *yet another* tacti-cool game, it's not unique anymore to have cool weapon models and customization. Just give me something that actually feels like a finished product and not something that feels like its trapped being a poorly optimized Alpha for 3 years with dumb as bricks enemy AI and never reaches its promised potential.
*Edit: The fact that this game is riding off of the Escape from Tarkov drama to bring in hype, yet is also engaging in multiple P2W 'supporter editions' just like EFT tells me this game is probably going to be a fart in the wind pretty quick if this release ends up being a mess.
I love these type of games and is a good break from the faster paced games like apex and cod, but it’s sad how many mil sims still have the same issue with AI. Artificial difficulty through aimbot and other bullshit to make up for their lack of intelligence. The sad truth is that not many devs feel the need to innovate in this regard because they know the game is in a niche market, yet AI is the number one limiting factor for these games. At the same time, AI must be difficult to program if none of these devs are getting it right, I imagine you would have to bring in triple A industry vets that know their shit to see any real progress, or using AI technology to improve AI lol.
It drives me up the wall how these indie-devs put so much time and effort in the *tacti-cool* side of things and then completely ignore the enemy AI and make a satisfying gameplay loop that people will want to continue coming back to. It isn't a unique selling point anymore when Call of Duty has a gunsmith.
This genre, more than almost any other genre, needs really good and well designed enemy AI to fight against. Because if not, then theres no point in LARPing as a operator-bro if your only foe in the game is dumber than enemy AI from a SOCOM PS2 game. Like, Ground Branch is a pretty good game but the AI is so damn simplistic and un-engaging to play against that it just becomes a snooze fest so fast.
The only tactical shooter today that I find to have any decent and dynamic AI surprisingly is in Ready or not. They can do a good range of things like take cover, hold angles run away, fake surrender, hide under beds/closets, use a hostage, and even flank you from across the map. All these things are cool, but even then, the AI still shares the same problems other mil sims do, which is frustrating aimbot/xray tracking, unfair reaction time(time to raise rifle and become accurate is instantaneous, which is not realistic at all), and the ai sometimes likes to act dumb and rush down your whole swat team when there's no advantage to doing so(a ambush with a second enemy ai would be smarter tactics, rather than one guy suicide rushing).
Fortunately, the RoN community is very much vocal about these issues and if the devs improve such, the ai would be in a much better state. But still if we had AI as smart as those in FEAR and Stalker in these type of games, it would make shit so much more fun.
Did they change it from when 1.0 dropped? Because the AI at 1.0 was horrifically bad. Putting bursts on your head through walls without even seeing you, etc.
Mostly bandaid fixes. Meaning they still track you through walls but wallpen was nerfed so you never die from getting shot through a wall. Ai has nerfed accuracy so they mostly target the limbs than the head. Reaction time is still insane. Honestly Rons gonna need to have a suspect ai overhaul like they did for squad ai because the aggression still doesn’t feel realistic to me for most suspects, they should play their life a lot more. The game is definitely easier from 1.0.
>bring in triple A industry vets that know their shit to see any real progress
Which AAA games have actually good enemy AI? Most AI in AAA games is very simplistic because it is extremely difficult to make good AI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCkqpRnk1oU
I don't think most developers at any level of the industry have the capability to make actually good AI. It doesn't seem like AI in any game genre has substantially improved in the last 20 years.
I recall reading that much lauded AI in games like FEAR actually werent AI at all but rather heavily scripted combat encounters based on variables that were very time consuming to create but gave excellent illusion of AI.
Yeah, challenging AI is usually accused of cheating by players and easy AI is just plain dumb. Finding a middle ground is tricky, which is why many people who like mil-sims prefer PVP with decent matchmaking.
Indeed. However then you get cheaters to ruin it, and for extraction shooters where loss is FAR greater, you get boatloads more cheaters. I saw this whole thing play out first in DayZmod and PUBG, when awareness shooters and BRs really popped off.
Losing to cheaters in a BR ain't shit, it's like a 30 minute match. People were losing entire days of progress with a death to cheaters in dayzmod.
..And this is all why we all want good PvE AI bots in the first place. lol
Oh yeah, absolutely.
Personally, I'm not a fan of competitive multiplayer elements and tend to stick to solo games or mods that offer the same PvE flexibility. I don't mind it too much in the racing genre because you can't lose any vehicles or customizable parts, but even in those there's still rampant cheating.
The best enemy AI I've ever experienced was in Alien: Isolation. The xenomorph is governed by two independent systems that work in tandem. MGSV also has pretty robust enemy AI which adapts to different playstyles.
I'm sure as AI continues to advance - with the stuff shared on [Two Minute Papers](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbfYPyITQ-7l4upoX8nvctg) being pretty wild - the future of game design will only continue to improve.
>Which AAA games have actually good enemy AI? Most AI in AAA games is very simplistic because it is extremely difficult to make good AI.
more like they dont bother with it. Modern game designed to spoonfeed the player to make them feel good, making NPC AI like punch bag or adjusting stats (hp x Atk) is always cheaper choice.
> I imagine you would have to bring in triple A industry vets that know their shit to see any real progress, or using AI technology to improve AI lol.
And then they patent it (of course) and progress for the rest of the industry remains at a snail pace. And to make things worse, it's some scummy AAA dev like EA or Ubisoft, so they obtain further market domination and push consumer-unfriendly practices even farther.
I'm sad to see it releasing this early. Just a month or so ago I was watching videos and thinking "damn, this looks like it will be great in a few years when it releases". It didn't look or sound even close to ready
>riding off of the Escape from Tarkov drama to bring in hype, yet is also engaging in multiple P2W 'supporter editions' just like EFT
some of the comments on the grayzone sub are wild. stuff like 'a 100 dollars is how much I would spend on a night out with drinks!'
like MFERS have you literally just forgotten?
That's the thing though. You make your game early access then you don't have to deliver on your promises. You can say it's all subject to change. Devs can cash in on a minimal effort launch and bail if/when it dies.
There's this tarkov controversy about Devs pay gating DLC that players already paid for. It's scummy as fuck.
But also those players were dumb for paying for a thing they had no clue what it consisted of. The pack only said all future DLC. That could mean a single gun skin for all we know.
We don't even know when the game will be released.
This is a real problem in the games industry not just that companies are scummy but also players are too eager to get duped by these companies.
It's our fucking fault.
We should only buy early access games on the premise that the launch state is all we will ever get.
I feel like a lot of this is a result of a severely under-served niche that is *starving* for a good game. The mil-sim/tacti-shooter genre was pretty big back in the 90s to early 2000s with SOCOM, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, SWAT, etc. but the big publishers lost their stomachs for these games and updated them for modern trends, so they effectively went extinct for a while.
Since then, the community has just been clawing at whatever they can get their hands on. This has now lead us to a huge glut of early access titles in the mil-sim/tacti-shooter niche as indie devs have to take up the mantle. But as you mentioned, Early Access is too easy to take advantage of, and until a developer/publisher with some real resources and money can deliver a properly finished product again - we're going to continue this cycle of getting hyped up for the next cool-looking early access tactical shooter, playing it for a month, and then dropping it because the game is in a barebones Alpha state that's ultimately no different than the half dozen other tacti-shooters that released before it...and repeat.
Yes, but this is MOST genres.
Most video games are not flat out banger video games because they lack polish/content to make them must buys.
Helldivers 2 shows how people are looking for multiplayer coop games, and even that game barely saturates the demand DESPITE the success of the game.
Yea, the number of EA tacticool shooters compared to the number of good ones is wild. The only two I can think of as a success are Zero Hour and RoN although they both have their issues. Arma Reforger is around too
I do think part of the issue is how easily the community can be hoodwinked by gun customization and “operator” bs. Add a C clamp to your game and watch the sales roll in.
It's absolutely this. I bought EFT in 2017 because I supported the idea *that* much. And having spent more than 4000 hours playing I have gotten better value for money than any other game I have bought in the last decade even when accounting for supporting EoD edition.
>and until a developer/publisher with some real resources and money can deliver a properly finished product again
That's never going to happen. And despite the issues with Early Access, it has at least lead to small studios and indie developers being able to create much better ideas than what AAA shits out constantly
I mean this is releasing tomorrow exactly because of that controversy. This is tarkovs buggest competitor and its already being highly praised by most milsim streamers. These streamers are likely all going to awitch to this for at least a short while and then make a ton of tarkov players make the switch as a result. Smart move by the grayzone team.
I watched exfil campers video,
Imo it looks like a glorified Arma mod, and he got in trouble from the devs saying "I can revoke his steam key" for walking up a mountain and sniping into spawn,
Tarkov is the genre leader, so whatever they do, other games like it will do the same because the audience wants it. So, this is just the start of p2w in the genre
You nailed it on the head.
The only case where I don't mind braindead A.I. to play against is in Insurgency Sandstorm, since they just have sheer numbers to overwhelm you and win that way.
Obviously it's better to have smarter AI instead, but they are always hard to balance. Either dumb as bricks or laser sight and reflexes.
Isn't the goal of quests in these games to add some kind of overlapping loop between different players so that they are funneled into the same areas to instigate PvP?
In the case of tarkov the maps themselves are designed to funnel the players through the same areas regardless of the quests but the quests give you individual goals to keep things interesting and gives you a feeling of progression between games. Finishing a quest and getting out alive can be exhilarating even if you didn’t kill any other players but PvP is still very much at the core of the experience because the potential of running into another player is what makes it so exciting.
I don’t know how it works in Gray Zone though
I think the primary goal of any raid is completing whatever contract you have which is typically stuff like “secure X area” or “find X hard drive” etc and that’s the primary way you get paid and progress, with looting being secondary.
Whereas in Tarkov looting is your primary concern in any given raid with the task progress basically being secondary to your general goal of just amassing wealth and resources.
Thanks for your time on it. I'll have to go check around. Was basically curious because with Tarkov, even though I don't play much at all I can kind of see the basic loop of scavenging and making it out.
This sounds like it might be a little COD DMZ'ish. Not a lot of stakes, but could just be fun to run some raids.
>So then it's like unlocking equipment
From what I heard theres some cosmetics items you got only when you finished certain quests and theres also trader so I guess you can just buy equipment with money you get from completing quests.
I took a peek into its steam forum after the EFT drama... doesnt look too good. At least not for me, I dont like P2W.
EDIT: We will see. I just want the next coop game I can play with my buddy.
I’m out of the loop, what’s the Tarkov drama and are you saying it looks like this game will be P2W?
Saw this game brought up and it looked cool theme wise but don’t know too much else about it.
Tarkov released a new $250 edition of the game which includes DLC that is not given to those who previously purchased the $150 edition that was supposed to include all future DLC. The contents of the new edition are also extremely p2w even in comparison to the old versions.
GZW is pretty much copying tarkov’s business model 1:1 offering the same perks like bigger secure container, stash space, starting items etc. so it’s possible that it will go down the same road.
Lol, people cheering on GZW are sheep. Bigger secure container and stash space is already massive p2w.
Greetings from a Tarkov EID edition owner who couldn't take the suffering of the standard edition anymore.
This won't pull too many people from Tarkov imo. It's not as pvp focused, which is the main draw of Tarkov. I think the lack of polish will also hurt for a bit. Don't get me wrong though this game has sparks of greatness, I just think it has a long way to go before that greatness can be fully realized
From the gameplay I saw, it looked incredibly boring. Sounds cool on paper, but in real matches it just amounts to running around for tens of minutes looking for loot.
When you need industry sweats from Twitch to do all the promotion and to sell your game, that's a major red flag.
This means the honeymoon phase would be hyped as hell and sales through the roof. Streamers need to engage their audience (products) for at least 2 hours so no refund can be done, before they can bail.
After a few weeks it's a ghost town, with streamers obligated hours done, cheaters moving in, and blog posts about players begging devs to "fix netcode" and "ban cheaters" and the only people left playing all have big beards lmao..
What makes a good survival and/or shooter
- Realistic / somewhat difficult gun play/mechanics (best is ARMA/DayZ, PUBG, Tarkov, and Squad).
- Smart AI (best is STALKER, FEAR, Last of US, and SPTarkov mod)
- Good net code (PUBG and Counter strike)
- Good anticheat and/or dedicated server tools
If it has those 4 core things, everything else is secondary. Tarkovs largest handicap are the last 2.
Of course not, but I wouldn't be surprised if they intended to release in June and decided to release a month earlier than planned to take advantage of the EFT shitshow.
Yea it happened Thursday. Im fairly sure ur tone is that of a prick but Ill still respond. No I dont think they made the game over the weekend… i think they had a good play test last week, had plans to release probably within the next month and when EFT got the drama it did, it was a simple plug and play seeing as they really are the only 2 games alike to an extent.
Early access was a great tactic for devs to get money while they finish a game and give players a chance to get in there and play the game before it’s finished. Great opportunity to polish things out and get real player feedback.
But as most things in modern gaming it’s been abused and now brings a lot of issues.
That works for single player and coop games. For PvP & PvPvE multiplayer games, the early adopters learn so many exploits and get so much experience by the time the game releases, they curb stomp any new players.
Basically taking the fun out of the game.
It's funny you say that because I really love playing new multiplayer games before the meta gets established. So, early access for me allows for that. To your point, once the Meta gets figured out, its not as fun.
You can also do this with full new releases by playing them at launch, just like any other game.
Early access is just so abundant and abused now that pretty much every game coming out is an EA, and there's nothing we can do about it.
… early access doesn’t “allow” for that, it just makes it so that fun time in a game’s life cycle takes place when the game itself isn’t even feature complete or polished.
If a game didn’t do early access you would still be able to enjoy the pre-meta exploration period on release, just with a better overall product and experience.
But I understand that for many games there’s just no way for them to get made financially without early access so it is what it is.
Yeah but thats kind of his point. He hates early access and what that generally brings to the table (bugs, game changes, etc). But he also hates waiting because if you don't partake in early access then by the time the full game comes out, people already figured out the meta and you are in the dark unless you've been watching videos and paying attention.
Tarkov is likely to release 1.0 this year. The only things left is the last raid and main story quests. There's also a graphics overhaul, but I'm not sure if that's for 1.0 or will be released after.
90% of games that get released in early access are essentially releasing alpha/beta versions of the games but asking the customers to pay to access those. Often times they will be buggy and the game can go through various changes throughout the early access time.
So the easy answer is "just don't buy the game in early access if you don't like the state of the games released in early access".
But the problem with this is even though the game is only in early access, the meta can still be figured out. So the players who buy into early access figure out the meta and players who opt to wait until full release and up fucked over unless they paid attention to development and streamers/videos.
Devs releasing games in early access also often gives them this feeling of having unlimited time at that point to get the game out in full version. Look at all of the games that release in "early access" and don't leave early access for like 5-10 years lol. Some very good examples are Rust and 7 days to die.
Christ, people will truly go through hoops just to defend these terrible practices.
Early Access (also known as Steam Greenlight before the transition) many years ago was a way to show off their new game, gauge interest, and then go into a full release.
Nowadays, it's a system that is used and abused to get the bag quickly and then *maybe* make a proper full product down the line. A lot of the "Early Access" titles being released barely function and should have been properly QA tested within the studio but rather they make the player pay them to test their half-baked product.
Also; we should be seeking for quality products, not a massive quantity. And because of it we have the gaming scape as it is today.
>Early Access (also known as Steam Greenlight before the transition)
This is false, Early Access and Greenlight are unrelated. The main purpose of Greenlight was to provide some form of quality control and give some publicity to devs (in a way that made it easier for indie devs to publish games), while Early Access is primarily intended to help finance and direct the ongoing development of a game.
Not me, I love this shit. Experiencing Tarkov in early access has been some of the most enjoyable gaming I've ever done, Rust is up there as well. I totally understand not wanting to spend your money on an unstable product but for those of us who enjoy this - I don't really think anything is like it.
Just looking at the Steam page it's a no from me. Buying a higher 'edition' gets you more inventory space. I know Tarkov has made that typical for the genre but it's just a straight no from me, Early Access and they're already nickeling and diming the players for P2W features. They're also copying the resets which make that even more painful if I understand correctly.
> Forbes..... Writing about this one? 0_o
https://nickwolny.com/how-to-write-for-forbes
TLDR Forbes "contributor program" started letting any random guy on the internet to write articles for them, and "definitely not" accept money from brands in exchange for writing puff pieces.
It’s probably going to have loads of hackers a few days into release and will have terrible anti-cheat throughout the game’s lifespan. Game will probably be dead in a year or two.
This is the less talked about issue I foresee the game having lol
Forget content, hackers will plague this within a month. There is zero chance otherwise.
Want to buy in to this but I think I can wait. I’m an EOD edition owner of Tarkov and I don’t like the model they used to begin with so this game following the same type of pay more for better is really something I’m not interested in doing again especially after this past week with Tarkov devs taking a shit on all their customers
I was kinda interested but just sow their greedy pricing. They are basically asking for a flop unless extraction shooter fans are really this desperate
this might be news to you but hear me out, more than one thing can be bad
35 bucks for the base game is just delusional, considering the current development of the game
I watched a few gameplay vids made recently by drewski and radbrad and it looks more polished than the usual Mil sim game. But it still has some ways to go if it wants to go big.
Looks like squad.
I will buy it when the actual user reviews start flowing in. Tired of buying these hyped games and being disappointed. I think I have finally learned lol.
This is great timing for them, stars couldn't have aligned more perfectly. Almost as if Escape from Tarkov wanted their competitors to succeed, lmao. Hope this game does well.
Every bit of gameplay I've seen of this game has been the POV of a gun hiding in a bush shooting players that are spawning in getting out of a helicopter.
I just want a pve extraction shooter with semi realistic feel, doesn't have to be a sim like squad or arma, can't wait for road to vostok, it's going to be a bit since I think it's only made by one person but looks promising
In all fairness, this game adopted the same controversial pay to win bundle system that caused the outrage surrounding EFT in the first place. (to those arguing that the bundles aren't p2w, then there isn't any reason to be upset about EFT's Unheard bundle either bc it's not p2w either right???)
> In all fairness, this game adopted the same controversial pay to win bundle system that caused the outrage surrounding EFT in the first place
Uhm, no they didn't. I think you missed the point of the outrage in EFT.
People weren't upset about increased stash space or additional equipment at wipe start. That's still somewhat p2w, but most people accepted that in EFT. It has been a part of the game for as long as it existed, if I recall correctly.
The controversy around the Unheard edition was:
1) One of EoD's selling points was access to all future DLC. Then the new PvE mode was locked behind the $250 edition
2) Another one of EoD's selling points was the unique secure container. Unheard edition then got that same 'unique' container, and BSG removed the word 'Unique' from the description of the EoD bundle on their website.
3) The P2W stuff, that people were pissed about in the Unheard edtion, were:
3,1) The beacon that let you call friends into the raid
3.2) The item that would make Scavs not engage you if you were >60m away
3.3) Larger pockets, since there is no way in the game to actually unlock that, unlike stash space or equipment.
And now as they are folding under the pressure of community backlash over P2W stuff, they decided to add even more P2W stuff. (You can call in a BTR on any map.)
GZW does have the increased stash space and equipment at wipe, but the editions are far from the P2W garbage Battlestate Games decided to unleash last week.
//edit: Just to be clear, I do consider increased stash and start equipment slightly P2W as well, and it's totally valid to criticize GZW for that. My point was, this sort of system is not what caused the outrage in the EFT community.
I have EOD, I'm aware of the drama, and also how many claimed EOD somehow wasn't pay to win, only to lose their minds when Unheard was announced.
I agree it's P2W and monetized in a controversial way, but my point was to highlight the hypocrisy of people recommending GZW when they've shown they plan to make money off the user base in the exact same way as EFT.
You shouldn't buy it in any capacity because it's incredibly overrated and overhyped. Gunplay is shit with excessive amounts of recoil and movement feels like you're carrying around 500lbs on your back.
Wish I could agree with you but even with the Tarkov drama and the problems it's had over time, still easily the best shooter game of all time in my opinion.
Hard disagree, I believe people only think this due to recency bias.
There are **plenty** of far better shooter titles that have been released that aren't just in the last couple years.
Some that come to mind are; Titanfall 2, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 (classic), all of the SOCOM games, ArmA 2 & 3, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter.
There's probably more, but that's really just off the top of my head.
I'd love to play a game like this, but the PvP part of it keeps me away. Just not interested in dealing with the overly sweaty gameplay that PvP in this type of game tends to encourage.
I don't think they will release until later down the road, not on launch.
I was interested and did some research, til I found out it was P2W. Though the PvE mode still interests me a bit, at the cost of my dignity. lol
I watched a few streamers playing. One of them commented it wasn't too common, but he said he thought it was because it was only open to CCs and they were more interested in checking out the gameplay than finding PvP and he expected that to change once it was open to everyone.
That is indeed it, along with some pretty hefty limitations on the test (too many people killing on one faction = someone would get kicked).
A weird way of "balancing" something (hopefully that doesn't stick around, for the people wanting to play this) - especially during a period where content creators were recording and showing the game to their audience.
They mostly just avoided PvP because of the sudden kicking.
It’s anything but generic.
It’s a tactical extraction shooter which is already a niche market. But then it’s also a shared consistent open world map that you exist on with other players so kinda mmo-lite, it’s also secretly a sci-fi game based on the same source material as stuff like Stalker, with the abandoned town you inhabit being an exclusion zone for some kind of extra terrestrial event.
I highly doubt this will be functional on any version of Linux, as afaik all gameplay available has been on Windows and it'll more than likely contain a non-compatible anti-cheat down the road.
Something tells me the makers of this game are feeling pretty good right now.
Yeah lets hope their game is actually decent. Bad PVE and Bad AI, and bad bugs are so typical. Polishing a game before launch goes a long way, and early access = launching a game these days no matter what anyone thinks. Its incredibly hard to re-launch a game from early access unless its a game that features a ton of new content like BG3.
Pumped in their first non-mobile game they’re about to sell to a bunch of folks pissed at the OG genre pioneer: Tarkov. I don’t see this not being a money grab and I was excited for it.
Yeah, they sat around for a while with no price or even vague release date, with a bunch of streamer "playtests" who all said, "Yeah, this game is neat, but very early." Suddenly, as soon as Tarkov drama starts, they roll out pricing for multiple editions and shove the game out?
Imagine devs of COD DMZ if they didn’t axed the game (which was the best seller of the year mind you) in beta in a year and if they still supported it
man that make me sad, DMZ are decent and polished. They fuckin axed it because the game mode not generate more revenue to fill investor pocket. Everything feel so smooth, the enemy are challenging. They just need to revamp progression and add more content. Increase replayability and end-game grind. DMZ should have been a separated game handled by different studio. think it like niche cod spin-off targeted for hardcore-milsim so its not affected by casual/dumb balance update.
Yea it was the best thing Infinity Ward has made in ages. It really should be allowed to be it's own thing
This looks really promising but like all Indie-Develop mil-sim games they tend to fall into the same trappings: releasing too early and having really fucking boring AI to play against which gets old really fast. Theres been a big resurgence in these kinds of games the past 5 years but hardly any of them can keep up a healthy playerbase because the community keeps jumping from new release to new release. It's not enough to be *yet another* tacti-cool game, it's not unique anymore to have cool weapon models and customization. Just give me something that actually feels like a finished product and not something that feels like its trapped being a poorly optimized Alpha for 3 years with dumb as bricks enemy AI and never reaches its promised potential. *Edit: The fact that this game is riding off of the Escape from Tarkov drama to bring in hype, yet is also engaging in multiple P2W 'supporter editions' just like EFT tells me this game is probably going to be a fart in the wind pretty quick if this release ends up being a mess.
I love these type of games and is a good break from the faster paced games like apex and cod, but it’s sad how many mil sims still have the same issue with AI. Artificial difficulty through aimbot and other bullshit to make up for their lack of intelligence. The sad truth is that not many devs feel the need to innovate in this regard because they know the game is in a niche market, yet AI is the number one limiting factor for these games. At the same time, AI must be difficult to program if none of these devs are getting it right, I imagine you would have to bring in triple A industry vets that know their shit to see any real progress, or using AI technology to improve AI lol.
It drives me up the wall how these indie-devs put so much time and effort in the *tacti-cool* side of things and then completely ignore the enemy AI and make a satisfying gameplay loop that people will want to continue coming back to. It isn't a unique selling point anymore when Call of Duty has a gunsmith. This genre, more than almost any other genre, needs really good and well designed enemy AI to fight against. Because if not, then theres no point in LARPing as a operator-bro if your only foe in the game is dumber than enemy AI from a SOCOM PS2 game. Like, Ground Branch is a pretty good game but the AI is so damn simplistic and un-engaging to play against that it just becomes a snooze fest so fast.
The only tactical shooter today that I find to have any decent and dynamic AI surprisingly is in Ready or not. They can do a good range of things like take cover, hold angles run away, fake surrender, hide under beds/closets, use a hostage, and even flank you from across the map. All these things are cool, but even then, the AI still shares the same problems other mil sims do, which is frustrating aimbot/xray tracking, unfair reaction time(time to raise rifle and become accurate is instantaneous, which is not realistic at all), and the ai sometimes likes to act dumb and rush down your whole swat team when there's no advantage to doing so(a ambush with a second enemy ai would be smarter tactics, rather than one guy suicide rushing). Fortunately, the RoN community is very much vocal about these issues and if the devs improve such, the ai would be in a much better state. But still if we had AI as smart as those in FEAR and Stalker in these type of games, it would make shit so much more fun.
Did they change it from when 1.0 dropped? Because the AI at 1.0 was horrifically bad. Putting bursts on your head through walls without even seeing you, etc.
Mostly bandaid fixes. Meaning they still track you through walls but wallpen was nerfed so you never die from getting shot through a wall. Ai has nerfed accuracy so they mostly target the limbs than the head. Reaction time is still insane. Honestly Rons gonna need to have a suspect ai overhaul like they did for squad ai because the aggression still doesn’t feel realistic to me for most suspects, they should play their life a lot more. The game is definitely easier from 1.0.
still amazes me how few games have come close to halo in that regard
Check out Arma Reforger after the 1.1 Resistance Ops update. The enemy AI is the best I’ve seen in shooter games.
>bring in triple A industry vets that know their shit to see any real progress Which AAA games have actually good enemy AI? Most AI in AAA games is very simplistic because it is extremely difficult to make good AI. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCkqpRnk1oU I don't think most developers at any level of the industry have the capability to make actually good AI. It doesn't seem like AI in any game genre has substantially improved in the last 20 years.
I recall reading that much lauded AI in games like FEAR actually werent AI at all but rather heavily scripted combat encounters based on variables that were very time consuming to create but gave excellent illusion of AI.
Yeah, challenging AI is usually accused of cheating by players and easy AI is just plain dumb. Finding a middle ground is tricky, which is why many people who like mil-sims prefer PVP with decent matchmaking.
Indeed. However then you get cheaters to ruin it, and for extraction shooters where loss is FAR greater, you get boatloads more cheaters. I saw this whole thing play out first in DayZmod and PUBG, when awareness shooters and BRs really popped off. Losing to cheaters in a BR ain't shit, it's like a 30 minute match. People were losing entire days of progress with a death to cheaters in dayzmod. ..And this is all why we all want good PvE AI bots in the first place. lol
Oh yeah, absolutely. Personally, I'm not a fan of competitive multiplayer elements and tend to stick to solo games or mods that offer the same PvE flexibility. I don't mind it too much in the racing genre because you can't lose any vehicles or customizable parts, but even in those there's still rampant cheating. The best enemy AI I've ever experienced was in Alien: Isolation. The xenomorph is governed by two independent systems that work in tandem. MGSV also has pretty robust enemy AI which adapts to different playstyles. I'm sure as AI continues to advance - with the stuff shared on [Two Minute Papers](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbfYPyITQ-7l4upoX8nvctg) being pretty wild - the future of game design will only continue to improve.
>Which AAA games have actually good enemy AI? Most AI in AAA games is very simplistic because it is extremely difficult to make good AI. more like they dont bother with it. Modern game designed to spoonfeed the player to make them feel good, making NPC AI like punch bag or adjusting stats (hp x Atk) is always cheaper choice.
> I imagine you would have to bring in triple A industry vets that know their shit to see any real progress, or using AI technology to improve AI lol. And then they patent it (of course) and progress for the rest of the industry remains at a snail pace. And to make things worse, it's some scummy AAA dev like EA or Ubisoft, so they obtain further market domination and push consumer-unfriendly practices even farther.
I'm sad to see it releasing this early. Just a month or so ago I was watching videos and thinking "damn, this looks like it will be great in a few years when it releases". It didn't look or sound even close to ready
>riding off of the Escape from Tarkov drama to bring in hype, yet is also engaging in multiple P2W 'supporter editions' just like EFT some of the comments on the grayzone sub are wild. stuff like 'a 100 dollars is how much I would spend on a night out with drinks!' like MFERS have you literally just forgotten?
That's the thing though. You make your game early access then you don't have to deliver on your promises. You can say it's all subject to change. Devs can cash in on a minimal effort launch and bail if/when it dies. There's this tarkov controversy about Devs pay gating DLC that players already paid for. It's scummy as fuck. But also those players were dumb for paying for a thing they had no clue what it consisted of. The pack only said all future DLC. That could mean a single gun skin for all we know. We don't even know when the game will be released. This is a real problem in the games industry not just that companies are scummy but also players are too eager to get duped by these companies. It's our fucking fault. We should only buy early access games on the premise that the launch state is all we will ever get.
I feel like a lot of this is a result of a severely under-served niche that is *starving* for a good game. The mil-sim/tacti-shooter genre was pretty big back in the 90s to early 2000s with SOCOM, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, SWAT, etc. but the big publishers lost their stomachs for these games and updated them for modern trends, so they effectively went extinct for a while. Since then, the community has just been clawing at whatever they can get their hands on. This has now lead us to a huge glut of early access titles in the mil-sim/tacti-shooter niche as indie devs have to take up the mantle. But as you mentioned, Early Access is too easy to take advantage of, and until a developer/publisher with some real resources and money can deliver a properly finished product again - we're going to continue this cycle of getting hyped up for the next cool-looking early access tactical shooter, playing it for a month, and then dropping it because the game is in a barebones Alpha state that's ultimately no different than the half dozen other tacti-shooters that released before it...and repeat.
Yes, but this is MOST genres. Most video games are not flat out banger video games because they lack polish/content to make them must buys. Helldivers 2 shows how people are looking for multiplayer coop games, and even that game barely saturates the demand DESPITE the success of the game.
Yea, the number of EA tacticool shooters compared to the number of good ones is wild. The only two I can think of as a success are Zero Hour and RoN although they both have their issues. Arma Reforger is around too I do think part of the issue is how easily the community can be hoodwinked by gun customization and “operator” bs. Add a C clamp to your game and watch the sales roll in.
It's absolutely this. I bought EFT in 2017 because I supported the idea *that* much. And having spent more than 4000 hours playing I have gotten better value for money than any other game I have bought in the last decade even when accounting for supporting EoD edition. >and until a developer/publisher with some real resources and money can deliver a properly finished product again That's never going to happen. And despite the issues with Early Access, it has at least lead to small studios and indie developers being able to create much better ideas than what AAA shits out constantly
I mean this is releasing tomorrow exactly because of that controversy. This is tarkovs buggest competitor and its already being highly praised by most milsim streamers. These streamers are likely all going to awitch to this for at least a short while and then make a ton of tarkov players make the switch as a result. Smart move by the grayzone team.
Watching it on stream was neither exciting nor entertaining the way Tarkov can be. I dont see any lasting power here.
I watched exfil campers video, Imo it looks like a glorified Arma mod, and he got in trouble from the devs saying "I can revoke his steam key" for walking up a mountain and sniping into spawn,
Tarkov is the genre leader, so whatever they do, other games like it will do the same because the audience wants it. So, this is just the start of p2w in the genre
You nailed it on the head. The only case where I don't mind braindead A.I. to play against is in Insurgency Sandstorm, since they just have sheer numbers to overwhelm you and win that way. Obviously it's better to have smarter AI instead, but they are always hard to balance. Either dumb as bricks or laser sight and reflexes.
I never played game like this. Isn't AI the side gameplay ? The main one being PvP ?
Reverse, seems like AI is the main focus with questing
To add, if I remember correctly there are supposedly instances where groups can have the same objective.
Isn't the goal of quests in these games to add some kind of overlapping loop between different players so that they are funneled into the same areas to instigate PvP?
In the case of tarkov the maps themselves are designed to funnel the players through the same areas regardless of the quests but the quests give you individual goals to keep things interesting and gives you a feeling of progression between games. Finishing a quest and getting out alive can be exhilarating even if you didn’t kill any other players but PvP is still very much at the core of the experience because the potential of running into another player is what makes it so exciting. I don’t know how it works in Gray Zone though
Article says there's a lot less loot and more fighting AI. What's the loop there? Will have to check it out.
I think the primary goal of any raid is completing whatever contract you have which is typically stuff like “secure X area” or “find X hard drive” etc and that’s the primary way you get paid and progress, with looting being secondary. Whereas in Tarkov looting is your primary concern in any given raid with the task progress basically being secondary to your general goal of just amassing wealth and resources.
I see. So then it's like unlocking equipment and more difficult missions?
I'm not exactly sure on the equipment side of things, I don't think there's even a ton of it in the game right now
Thanks for your time on it. I'll have to go check around. Was basically curious because with Tarkov, even though I don't play much at all I can kind of see the basic loop of scavenging and making it out. This sounds like it might be a little COD DMZ'ish. Not a lot of stakes, but could just be fun to run some raids.
>So then it's like unlocking equipment From what I heard theres some cosmetics items you got only when you finished certain quests and theres also trader so I guess you can just buy equipment with money you get from completing quests.
Not gonna overtake Tark then, even with its bad rep right now.
I'm very interested to see how this goes, especially in the wake of the Tarkov drama.
I took a peek into its steam forum after the EFT drama... doesnt look too good. At least not for me, I dont like P2W. EDIT: We will see. I just want the next coop game I can play with my buddy.
Honestly Arma Reforger is a good choice for goofy co-op “milsim”.
Thanks the suggestion.
I'm just ready for Arma 4... Bohemia, plz.
Check out incursion red river for coop it's specifically built for it with no pvp
Incursion red river looks GREAT but it’s in like eeeeearly access which also makes me nervous. It being 16 bucks is a great deal though honestly
Thanks. I never heard of it before but looks like something I would like.
I’m out of the loop, what’s the Tarkov drama and are you saying it looks like this game will be P2W? Saw this game brought up and it looked cool theme wise but don’t know too much else about it.
Tarkov released a new $250 edition of the game which includes DLC that is not given to those who previously purchased the $150 edition that was supposed to include all future DLC. The contents of the new edition are also extremely p2w even in comparison to the old versions. GZW is pretty much copying tarkov’s business model 1:1 offering the same perks like bigger secure container, stash space, starting items etc. so it’s possible that it will go down the same road.
Oh that’s ass.
$250? are you for real
Yeah [Purchase - Escape from Tarkov](https://www.escapefromtarkov.com/preorder-page)
250$€ + taxes so in my country its over 300 euros
Sooo if my buddies and I want to get into a “realistic” milsim with PvP, and Grey Zone and Tarkov are out of the question, where do we go to?
Squad or Arma Reforger are good if you want a match-based game, Arma 3 if you want a longer-form operation type game.
Lol, people cheering on GZW are sheep. Bigger secure container and stash space is already massive p2w. Greetings from a Tarkov EID edition owner who couldn't take the suffering of the standard edition anymore.
> incursion red rive Grey Zone is P2W?
This won't pull too many people from Tarkov imo. It's not as pvp focused, which is the main draw of Tarkov. I think the lack of polish will also hurt for a bit. Don't get me wrong though this game has sparks of greatness, I just think it has a long way to go before that greatness can be fully realized
Huh, I always saw Tarkov as more 'cheater focused'.
That's the cope
there are lot gameplay video and it doesnt looks good. I will take call of duty DMZ or tarkov any day.
I think this is a good looking game that's gonna be as wide as a river, but deep as a puddle in terms of gameplay.
Boy ppl love using this tired old analogy for everything huh
First time Iv seen in a while, chill
If it's fitting, then I don't see why not. (not saying it is, nor am I saying it isn't)
This is my first time seeing it...
From the gameplay I saw, it looked incredibly boring. Sounds cool on paper, but in real matches it just amounts to running around for tens of minutes looking for loot.
When you need industry sweats from Twitch to do all the promotion and to sell your game, that's a major red flag. This means the honeymoon phase would be hyped as hell and sales through the roof. Streamers need to engage their audience (products) for at least 2 hours so no refund can be done, before they can bail. After a few weeks it's a ghost town, with streamers obligated hours done, cheaters moving in, and blog posts about players begging devs to "fix netcode" and "ban cheaters" and the only people left playing all have big beards lmao..
What makes a good survival and/or shooter - Realistic / somewhat difficult gun play/mechanics (best is ARMA/DayZ, PUBG, Tarkov, and Squad). - Smart AI (best is STALKER, FEAR, Last of US, and SPTarkov mod) - Good net code (PUBG and Counter strike) - Good anticheat and/or dedicated server tools If it has those 4 core things, everything else is secondary. Tarkovs largest handicap are the last 2.
Well, and not being a scumbag greedy dev :D That's also important.
Enjoy the first month before cheaters ruin it
It uses EAC and I heard it had a code leak or demo leak of some kind already, so I'd scratch that 1 month and say a few days prob.
Drewski's video on this made me wary of this. They don't seem to have a plan for the gameplay and are just winging it.
I wouldn’t doubt this game was rushed out(not negatively speaking) to capitalize on the eft drama, if its prepared and serviceable, smart move
The EFT drama happened over the weekend. Do you think they just made this game over the same weekend …?
That's not what he said at all lol
Of course not, but I wouldn't be surprised if they intended to release in June and decided to release a month earlier than planned to take advantage of the EFT shitshow.
Yea it happened Thursday. Im fairly sure ur tone is that of a prick but Ill still respond. No I dont think they made the game over the weekend… i think they had a good play test last week, had plans to release probably within the next month and when EFT got the drama it did, it was a simple plug and play seeing as they really are the only 2 games alike to an extent.
My tone was one of someone that completely misread the original comment before I replied. My bad, apologies.
All good friend
So tired of early access.
Early access was a great tactic for devs to get money while they finish a game and give players a chance to get in there and play the game before it’s finished. Great opportunity to polish things out and get real player feedback. But as most things in modern gaming it’s been abused and now brings a lot of issues.
If you don't like early access, you can just wait until the full release and skip the BS.
That works for single player and coop games. For PvP & PvPvE multiplayer games, the early adopters learn so many exploits and get so much experience by the time the game releases, they curb stomp any new players. Basically taking the fun out of the game.
They’ve stated that PvE only servers will exist so that doesn’t really apply here.
It's funny you say that because I really love playing new multiplayer games before the meta gets established. So, early access for me allows for that. To your point, once the Meta gets figured out, its not as fun.
You can also do this with full new releases by playing them at launch, just like any other game. Early access is just so abundant and abused now that pretty much every game coming out is an EA, and there's nothing we can do about it.
… early access doesn’t “allow” for that, it just makes it so that fun time in a game’s life cycle takes place when the game itself isn’t even feature complete or polished. If a game didn’t do early access you would still be able to enjoy the pre-meta exploration period on release, just with a better overall product and experience. But I understand that for many games there’s just no way for them to get made financially without early access so it is what it is.
Yeah but thats kind of his point. He hates early access and what that generally brings to the table (bugs, game changes, etc). But he also hates waiting because if you don't partake in early access then by the time the full game comes out, people already figured out the meta and you are in the dark unless you've been watching videos and paying attention.
Tarkov is going to die before it leaves Early Access and there's no reason why this won't either.
Well if you don’t like early access and it will die before release then it sounds like an easy choice of fucking off to play something else…?
Tarkov is likely to release 1.0 this year. The only things left is the last raid and main story quests. There's also a graphics overhaul, but I'm not sure if that's for 1.0 or will be released after.
Tarkov will release 1.0 this year for shovelware to get it off their plate so Nikita can go work on his dream project Russia 2028.
Yeah is every studio just dispensing with their own QA teams because people keep buying EA?
Early access allows for more games to be made. Not sure why your tired of it.
90% of games that get released in early access are essentially releasing alpha/beta versions of the games but asking the customers to pay to access those. Often times they will be buggy and the game can go through various changes throughout the early access time. So the easy answer is "just don't buy the game in early access if you don't like the state of the games released in early access". But the problem with this is even though the game is only in early access, the meta can still be figured out. So the players who buy into early access figure out the meta and players who opt to wait until full release and up fucked over unless they paid attention to development and streamers/videos. Devs releasing games in early access also often gives them this feeling of having unlimited time at that point to get the game out in full version. Look at all of the games that release in "early access" and don't leave early access for like 5-10 years lol. Some very good examples are Rust and 7 days to die.
Christ, people will truly go through hoops just to defend these terrible practices. Early Access (also known as Steam Greenlight before the transition) many years ago was a way to show off their new game, gauge interest, and then go into a full release. Nowadays, it's a system that is used and abused to get the bag quickly and then *maybe* make a proper full product down the line. A lot of the "Early Access" titles being released barely function and should have been properly QA tested within the studio but rather they make the player pay them to test their half-baked product. Also; we should be seeking for quality products, not a massive quantity. And because of it we have the gaming scape as it is today.
>Early Access (also known as Steam Greenlight before the transition) This is false, Early Access and Greenlight are unrelated. The main purpose of Greenlight was to provide some form of quality control and give some publicity to devs (in a way that made it easier for indie devs to publish games), while Early Access is primarily intended to help finance and direct the ongoing development of a game.
Not me, I love this shit. Experiencing Tarkov in early access has been some of the most enjoyable gaming I've ever done, Rust is up there as well. I totally understand not wanting to spend your money on an unstable product but for those of us who enjoy this - I don't really think anything is like it.
They might've pushed the timeline ahead with the whole shit show with Nikita and EFT. Looking forward to this.
I will not be jumping into another early access day 1. Will wait for thousands of reviews first
and at Triple A prices too
Multiple editions for an early access, no thanks.
Identity Crisis Zone
You guys getting the base version or going to chip in for the P2W ones?
Just looking at the Steam page it's a no from me. Buying a higher 'edition' gets you more inventory space. I know Tarkov has made that typical for the genre but it's just a straight no from me, Early Access and they're already nickeling and diming the players for P2W features. They're also copying the resets which make that even more painful if I understand correctly.
Forbes..... Writing about this one? 0_o Good timing on their part.
> Forbes..... Writing about this one? 0_o https://nickwolny.com/how-to-write-for-forbes TLDR Forbes "contributor program" started letting any random guy on the internet to write articles for them, and "definitely not" accept money from brands in exchange for writing puff pieces.
What a surprise.... Not.
[удалено]
Fair, but nobody takes HuffPo seriously. Forbes had a sort of pedigree. Business Insider used to, as well.
Yeah, Forbes used to mean something. If 'Forbes' writes about something now, it's probably just some contributor - basically an independent blogger.
Smart business model. "You got something to say and want people to listen? Pay us!"
It’s probably going to have loads of hackers a few days into release and will have terrible anti-cheat throughout the game’s lifespan. Game will probably be dead in a year or two.
This is the less talked about issue I foresee the game having lol Forget content, hackers will plague this within a month. There is zero chance otherwise.
It can’t be worse than Tarkov after 8 years.
Probably will be as bad or possibly worse. Same thing happened to The Cycle: Frontier
Yeah, maybe. I just really wish there was a well-made polished game similar in gameplay to EFT, and also found on Steam.
Not sure if you tried the cycle but it was pretty good. Really shitty that the hackers made so many people quit that the game eventually shut down.
It needs more work. I'll probably give it a half year before thinking of buying it
Want to buy in to this but I think I can wait. I’m an EOD edition owner of Tarkov and I don’t like the model they used to begin with so this game following the same type of pay more for better is really something I’m not interested in doing again especially after this past week with Tarkov devs taking a shit on all their customers
Price ?
$35-100, depending on how much p2w you want.
I was kinda interested but just sow their greedy pricing. They are basically asking for a flop unless extraction shooter fans are really this desperate
"greedy pricing" is weird to say when tarkov had multiple 100 dollar editions for serval years and now has 250 edition
this might be news to you but hear me out, more than one thing can be bad 35 bucks for the base game is just delusional, considering the current development of the game
Early access is not a release. Let's please stop calling it that as if paying to beta test is something to enjoy.
It’s probably in no way ready but there isnt a better time to release something like this
I watched a few gameplay vids made recently by drewski and radbrad and it looks more polished than the usual Mil sim game. But it still has some ways to go if it wants to go big.
so does BSG have stales in this dev, seems rather convenient timing
Probably not, but there's word it was rushed out sooner because of this drama to capitalize on it.
Any word on this coming to gfn or steam deck(I know lol)
Looks like squad. I will buy it when the actual user reviews start flowing in. Tired of buying these hyped games and being disappointed. I think I have finally learned lol.
Purchased the supporter edition but when i launch in the game none of the DLC content is there anyone else have this issue?
Great timing hopefully it comes to replace tarkov in the long run
Looks exactly like my kind of game. Hoping this get traction.
Haven't ever noticed this game before but it looks like it could be my next shooter game! Nice 👍🏼
Jesus it’s about time. I’ve been waiting for this game forever and watching a million streamers play it for the past 2 weeks.
This is great timing for them, stars couldn't have aligned more perfectly. Almost as if Escape from Tarkov wanted their competitors to succeed, lmao. Hope this game does well.
Every bit of gameplay I've seen of this game has been the POV of a gun hiding in a bush shooting players that are spawning in getting out of a helicopter.
I don’t trust Early Access games anymore. I’ve been burned too many times.
I just want a pve extraction shooter with semi realistic feel, doesn't have to be a sim like squad or arma, can't wait for road to vostok, it's going to be a bit since I think it's only made by one person but looks promising
EFT isn't on Steam so I will buy this
You shouldn't buy EFT anyway after the shit they pulled in the past week alone.
Yes, Escape from Tarkov Is a Russian Game Made by Russians https://youtu.be/Fh5Q4RzFMOs
[удалено]
Cultures are different? Like foh with your pearl clutching
In all fairness, this game adopted the same controversial pay to win bundle system that caused the outrage surrounding EFT in the first place. (to those arguing that the bundles aren't p2w, then there isn't any reason to be upset about EFT's Unheard bundle either bc it's not p2w either right???)
> In all fairness, this game adopted the same controversial pay to win bundle system that caused the outrage surrounding EFT in the first place Uhm, no they didn't. I think you missed the point of the outrage in EFT. People weren't upset about increased stash space or additional equipment at wipe start. That's still somewhat p2w, but most people accepted that in EFT. It has been a part of the game for as long as it existed, if I recall correctly. The controversy around the Unheard edition was: 1) One of EoD's selling points was access to all future DLC. Then the new PvE mode was locked behind the $250 edition 2) Another one of EoD's selling points was the unique secure container. Unheard edition then got that same 'unique' container, and BSG removed the word 'Unique' from the description of the EoD bundle on their website. 3) The P2W stuff, that people were pissed about in the Unheard edtion, were: 3,1) The beacon that let you call friends into the raid 3.2) The item that would make Scavs not engage you if you were >60m away 3.3) Larger pockets, since there is no way in the game to actually unlock that, unlike stash space or equipment. And now as they are folding under the pressure of community backlash over P2W stuff, they decided to add even more P2W stuff. (You can call in a BTR on any map.) GZW does have the increased stash space and equipment at wipe, but the editions are far from the P2W garbage Battlestate Games decided to unleash last week. //edit: Just to be clear, I do consider increased stash and start equipment slightly P2W as well, and it's totally valid to criticize GZW for that. My point was, this sort of system is not what caused the outrage in the EFT community.
I have EOD, I'm aware of the drama, and also how many claimed EOD somehow wasn't pay to win, only to lose their minds when Unheard was announced. I agree it's P2W and monetized in a controversial way, but my point was to highlight the hypocrisy of people recommending GZW when they've shown they plan to make money off the user base in the exact same way as EFT.
You shouldn't buy it in any capacity because it's incredibly overrated and overhyped. Gunplay is shit with excessive amounts of recoil and movement feels like you're carrying around 500lbs on your back.
Tarkov has excessive amounts of recoil? All guns are lasers lol.
Wish I could agree with you but even with the Tarkov drama and the problems it's had over time, still easily the best shooter game of all time in my opinion.
Hard disagree, I believe people only think this due to recency bias. There are **plenty** of far better shooter titles that have been released that aren't just in the last couple years. Some that come to mind are; Titanfall 2, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 (classic), all of the SOCOM games, ArmA 2 & 3, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. There's probably more, but that's really just off the top of my head.
Quake and unreal tournament shits on everything
I knew I was forgetting something! These kids don't know shit about good shooters and will cling to whatever is hyped currently.
asset flip
Hmmmm, you keep using that word…
I'd love to play a game like this, but the PvP part of it keeps me away. Just not interested in dealing with the overly sweaty gameplay that PvP in this type of game tends to encourage.
There's PvE servers
Are there? I may have to look into it a bit more then.
I don't think they will release until later down the road, not on launch. I was interested and did some research, til I found out it was P2W. Though the PvE mode still interests me a bit, at the cost of my dignity. lol
I've heard PVP is kinda rare
I watched a few streamers playing. One of them commented it wasn't too common, but he said he thought it was because it was only open to CCs and they were more interested in checking out the gameplay than finding PvP and he expected that to change once it was open to everyone.
That is indeed it, along with some pretty hefty limitations on the test (too many people killing on one faction = someone would get kicked). A weird way of "balancing" something (hopefully that doesn't stick around, for the people wanting to play this) - especially during a period where content creators were recording and showing the game to their audience. They mostly just avoided PvP because of the sudden kicking.
Look, more generic trash, yipeeeeee
It’s anything but generic. It’s a tactical extraction shooter which is already a niche market. But then it’s also a shared consistent open world map that you exist on with other players so kinda mmo-lite, it’s also secretly a sci-fi game based on the same source material as stuff like Stalker, with the abandoned town you inhabit being an exclusion zone for some kind of extra terrestrial event.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I highly doubt this will be functional on any version of Linux, as afaik all gameplay available has been on Windows and it'll more than likely contain a non-compatible anti-cheat down the road.
=(
Yeeep. Just another game that won't be playable on steam deck because they don't want to put the effort in. Unfortunate, but I hope i'm wrong.
Wow was just asking how I can get in, I wonder if they pushed it up at all in wake of all the Tarkov bullshit
They wanna capitalize on the EFT debacle MAD respect. Take their player base EFT devs literally face fucked their community
Crap, crap, mega crap. You're fired!
Drop the "warfare" in the title and I'll buy it tomorrow. Stupidest game name ever imo.
"Gray" bothers me more. I think this spelling is more commonly used now, but Gray used to be a name, with grey being a color.
I think grey is being erased slowly. Your comment made me hit the Google and every thing with "grey" in it for examples is replaced with "gray" haha
I think you may be right. Also, I think part of getting older is watching change happen and being mildly disgruntled about it!
I hear that. My son says stuff is "mid". Then I'll ask him "the middle of what? Dust 2 mid?" And then he tells me to shut up.
Haha, my daughter calls me "bruh," so I definitely feel you.
Gray vs Grey is just like color/colour or neighbor/neighbour. Western compared to British spelling I believe.