it's a long time now since i have seen a review by someone who has so many followers on YouTube (22K) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClOGLGPOqlAiLmOvXW5lKbw so, thoughts is this guy wright or completely wrong i can find a few points to agree on and i think this vid will hurt PS2
I actually agree with the reviewer wholeheartedly. He raises many good points, but I think he really could and perhaps should have addressed gameplay balance in a much more meaningful manner. I can understand his reasoning for why not, but he could have at least given examples of what the balance has been in the past and the numerous balance changes that have been enacted over the years. If PS2 suffers for this, good. Be it an incentive to fix their mess or as a punishment for their apparent incompetence.
Watched the first 8 minutes. He doesn't like the game. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Sometimes motive is belied by method of delivery.
*only watches 8 minutes, claims reviewer doesn't like game, later on in the video, reviewer says it's a great game in regard to what it is*. Ps2 is rather frustrating, not because it's a bad game, but because it's a good game that is the only one of its kind that falls within itself when it comes to balancing probably because there's nothing to base it off of.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Sometimes motive is belied by method of delivery. What is your motive?
Game to feel more bloody good. The implant system, makes heavy not need anyone else for anything, guy stated, I agree with. Constantly overpop defending a base and then leaving because another base needs overpop, also a bad system, I agree with. Ps2 going back to the original lattice system from ps1 makes them look silly after the months they spent on the maps territory control, I agree. ES stuff being shut down even when players submit the models, it looks silly, I agree. My motive is that this review actually reflects the opinions of long time players, dismissing it as he doesn't like game, gj, is like if I shut down the forums because devs got all the feedback they needed, players didn't like it; not much information at all.
Very superficial review, mentions a lot of things but without any depth. Its like the reviewer is frustrated with the things that are added to the game, preferring a scraped down version. Take the redeploy system for instance, which again the reviewer think is bad by mere existence. My frustrations with that are The spawn locations which are only allowed for some limited time, when I'm like ''there's a big fight, let me just select it and... its gone...''. Being based on the lattice instead of real distance for measuring proximity, when dying 1 meter inside a different hex you can no longer spawn where you want to. That's the kind of analysis I'd expect from a meaningful review.
I love the game and have done for the couple of years I've been playing it, which is all that matters to me. Ofc, there are things I don't do, like fly airplanes, try to win alerts, grind directives or play Max.................fun with a gun is my thing
I thought he was wrong about most things. It was also almost point by point, a regurgitation of a podcast from a few weeks ago (Instant Action podcast by Derringer, in which he interviews the leader of TE). And who was consulted for and frequently quoted in this new video by Mandalore? The leader of TE! Are you noticing a common theme here?
However, it is OK to shut down the current gaming experience that people enjoy because that experience doesn't suit you?
Typos, I was like half asleep. My motive is that this review actually gets looked at by devs because it actually reflects the opinions of long time players, dismissing this review as "he doesn't like the game, gj" is like if I shut down the forums because devs got all the feedback they needed: "They don't like it, add more onions". There isn't much information circulating there at all, there's no point in simply saying no it isn't because all that does is hurt the game trying to get what players want. "I don't know what their vision is, I don't know if they know what their vision is". To respond to the quote at hand: "However, it is ok to shut down current gaming experience that people enjoy because that experience doesn't suit you?" That's basically saying never nerf anything. Implants for example, basically makes it so that there is no point to support classes, or at least little to no point. Regen, ammo printer, heavy with best setup, done. Clearly the system is new, people don't like the RNG system, heavy mains have no reason to play anything else unless for ***** and giggles or directives, playing for the grind is not fun. All of these decisions that were made previously based on PS1 makes the game look like it should be reverted to PS1, a lot of good arguments and solutions have been found there, such as using ants to resupply a base to keep a defense going so that there was more to the seige than just sitting there or zerging and having massive FPS drops, it also included strategy something that players that solo or use platoons would love to use. What's more is that reverting to PS1 doesn't change anything, you still have 50 people fighting for this tower, but others are actually fighting on the way to the tower too, libs and ESFs don't just sit at warpgates waiting for air to come out, there's more objectives than just the points that infantry holds, adding more doesn't mean shutting down, it means adding more in this case.
I am not against "nerfing". What I am dubious of is arbitrary changes. When there are no physical laws, and an infinite number of variables, every change is arbitrary.
I watched the whole video. I enjoyed watching it and enjoyed hearing his opinion. Ultimately I think he covers what the game is (and has been over time) pretty well... but he does so only really from the perspective of organized players. Which really is skipping over the majority of the playerbase and the main way that most people end up playing this game. This is a pretty big oversight by the reviewer. Not only does he skip discussing un-organized play, but he also skips over the massive impact that un-organized play has on shaping the player experience in PS2 for everyone (organized and un-organized). To put it in simple terms of the current meta, he never discusses the Zerg factor. Zerg play vs. organized play (aka "mobile, guidable, mini-zerg play"). Like most organized play focused reviews, he is stuck in a player bias which only looks at the game from what he either wants or likes to do. And in doing so, he ignores (1) what most other players are doing, and (2) how changes in the game could be done to impact both organized and un-organized in a harmonic and beneficial level. But at least I know what (he thinks) he wants and who he wants the game to be made for (even though I think he doesn't understand [like most don't] how to reasobly get to that). And I do agree with him on a lot of the issues that affect the quality of life of all players: camos killing flavor and sewing confusion, lack of Faction profile on vehicles (and I would add lack of profile distinction on vehicle loadout differences), lots of Dev efforts to take money in lazy and cheap and problematic ways.
i do agree with you on every word you wrote and couldn't explain or write it better myself i also think the reviewer has great insight in this game only the way he brings it is scary for potential new players who never played this game and it has a repellent effect for us vets it's no problem cause we know he is wright but we all know how to relevate things cause we know the game and how DBG works with there skeleton crew to loop back, this is why he probably made this review in the first place
