Gave this to a friend, got feedback EDIT: now with full 1st impressions review from @MicroMacXPX
0x6A7232
US Join Date: 2016-10-06 Member: 222906Members
US Join Date: 2016-10-06 Member: 222906Members
Keep in mind this is his initial reaction to the Out-of-Box-Experience, so this may change etc:
EDIT: I didn't tell him I was passing the feedback along, so now he's writing up a more descriptive feedback, I'll update this post when he adds it.
EDIT2: Full first impressions review is up, here
Hey. So I had a chance to play through the tutorials last night, but that was as far as I got.
I can see why the game is a little difficult to play. They did make it artificially complex. Although the game is relatively simple to play and in construction, the RTS UI is largely based on standard RTS games, and is not optimized for the fast-paced nature of the FPS side of the game.
They should have used more of a C&C UI versus StarCraft, since that would enable rapid response, particularly for new players or those who have a hard time with memorization.
That's also where a lot of the complexity comes in. Since the FPS side of the game is CQC, doing RTS on such a small scale requires quick responses. Hunting for which building you need to upgrade or clicking through the UI options to find what you need takes time, of which you won't have on a CQC scale. It doesn't take much to for a commander to be ineffective. The game also requires very tight and active communication among the team.
Commanders will need to describe what they see and give clear descriptions of the overview, while players need to be clear on what they see and help the commander by signaling if they need something and helping in coordination. For example, some players want to push to the next room, so while the commander is focused there, other players need to be aware of this and react accordingly. As a result of this, although it promotes teamwork which is an improvement over BF4, there may be uncomfortable clashes as hardcore gamers meet casual gamers, which couldn't really happen with BF4's design.
So the game needs a little work, or a lot of practice with patient players. Also, I wish they had a single player mode. Overall, the game is fun and a great concept.
Due to the nature of the game, I can't help but feel this game would have been better on the Xbox or PS4 versus the PC. This is due to the need for communication, and headsets are not built into PC gaming but is out-of-the-box for consoles. I also wish the game was on a larger scale, but that is me. Be nice if we could get a group together and go in to play. That would probably be the best experience. Can't wait until our schedules sync up. Be nice to try this together.
EDIT: I didn't tell him I was passing the feedback along, so now he's writing up a more descriptive feedback, I'll update this post when he adds it.
EDIT2: Full first impressions review is up, here
Comments
I agree though, a proper SP mode would have improved things if we had it at launch, but it's too late for that now.
Heh. I'll just leave this here:
http://xim4.com/ (Accurate translation from KB/M and / or joystick to controller input, while still being able to use the controller as well.)
I have one, it's actually pretty cool. It has different profiles for different games and the different aiming modes (shoot from hip vs aim down sight etc) that you can select from an app on your phone (or from the computer).
But yeah, straight controller is ridiculous. You can sort of get better after a while, but trying to control that much movement with just two thumbsticks, while still being able to aim accurately... you'd have to be a machine, and even then the controller itself isn't that accurate, especially after a bit of usage.
I can ask, will post back.
Yes, this would be really helpful for new players... even a short & simple campaign would do
If you don't have a microphone or a headset on your desktop machine, you're either not inclined for gaming, or you just are too shy/new to gaming, either way you can be really good at games and still be a team player without a microphone, hell some of the best comms in NS2 have no mics, or refuse to use them.
I've played NS2 with PS3 Controller, Xbox Controller, cheap chinky controller, steam controller, VR headsets, used numerous different methods of input and programs to change those inputs and it completely wouldn't ever work in a console environment, the amount of movement required (or atleast at one stage was required) is immense to the point where you cannot ever react fast enough with sticks or even a steam controller.
At one point the original UWE team were planning to put NS2 on a console (from memory, i remember Flayra or someone talking about licensing and not being able to get it for anything other then PC at the time due to contracts with one huge investor(unnamed investor) -
Most people buy consoles to get comfy on a couch or share a game with mates, buying a console then buying this unit is defeating the purpose for putting it on consoles. Besides it doesn't balance well for console gameplay, it just wouldn't
With that said, NS2 can't even get optimized enough on a PC let alone at the time PS3/Xbox 360, hell it would run like a turd on PS4/xbox1 the best bit about playing NS2 on a controller is nothing at all.
I imagine that would be highly dependent on the resolution you're playing at. What's the NS2 min res? 1024x768? Ok, just checked, apparently it goes all the way down with no min, so I'll just say 1024x768 or 800x600 has to be the minimum, and you should be able to run the game at those resolutions using that potato you mentioned from the min specs.
Nope even today with all the performance enhancements, you are barely even able to run the game, back then it was even worse the game didn't even run at 10fps. about 2 years back i had built a joke computer 1.2ghz celeron and even bumped up the ram to 512mb with windows xp with an okayish AGP gpu and it was only giving me 5fps, same goes for the engine test, it just didn't work.
Hell a 1.6ghz amd laptop with a radeon HD integrated card was only getting 15fps, that's why my hive score was so low, i was using a shit laptop when i moved to Australia from New Zealand for about 1 1/2 years.
@Mephilles - I’m the one @0x6A7232 got the review from. It has been a very busy last few days, but it's starting to feel good to catch back up.
I should explain that, when I sent the review above to @0x6A7232, I was using Facebook Messenger, resulting in a review which was both brief, and lacking the context of a few previous private conversations, without which some of what I meant got lost. So... since I have some capacity to organize my thoughts and opinions, here are my first impressions, with all the explanations, context, definitions, and everything else.
I should also mention that at the time of this writing, I've played through the tutorials, and spectated a few games, so this will mostly be from the point-of-view of a new player coming into the game. I will also try to explain things, to the best of my abilities, from the perspective of the different types of gamers. To simplify, I will break it down into the following groups, and I'll be using the included definitions:
Game Overview
If there could ever be a game where Aliens (1986), Call of Duty, and StarCraft met, this would probably be it. I've only seen one other game try to mix FPS and RTS, and it came nowhere close to how well this game has integrated the two genres. Overall, this is a fast paced, close quarters combat, first person shooter game, with the addition of a commander to direct and assist players on their team from a real-time strategy perspective. If there are any gamers out there that are curious as to what it would be like if FPS and RTS collided, check this game out.
Overall, this game is really fun to play, and shockingly, even just spectating can be interesting. The game is well built, and has the potential of being a classic like StarCraft, or some of the earlier CoD games. It shows that the developers and testers put in a lot of time in trying to get this right, and I must say, there’s no way that was easy. FPS and RTS operate on two different time scales. FPS tends to push more towards real-time, while RTS time is accelerated (For example, 1 minute in real-time could be a month in RTS game time. In other words, it doesn't take 45 seconds to build a barracks in real-time, unlike in an RTS game.). Blending the two could not have been easy, but this team pulled it off.
Of course, nothing can exist without critics. lol. As with any design/construction choice, there are pros and cons. This game is no exception. Although this game takes advantage of many familiar designs found in many other games of the genres, there were small things custom tailored to this game that players will need to learn in order to maximize their effectiveness. This is, more or less, due to this game not being just an FPS or RTS game, but a blend of the two. As a result, it is plausible that some players comfortable with only one genre and not the other may get thrown off by some of these elements until they learn how this game works. In other words, this game does have a slight learning curve, but not too steep. I'll go into more details below.
FPS Overview
The primary focus of this game appears to be on the FPS side of the house. There are two factions: Marines and Aliens. Marines are focused on short to medium range combat, while Aliens are focused on short to contact range combat. For players looking for a comparison of playstyles, the best example I can think of would be Command and Conquer 3, where GDI focused more on supremacy in all areas and Nod was focused more on stealth. Similarly, Marines are focused more on a traditional combat style while Aliens focus more on stealth and silence to close in for the kill. For those looking for the rush of getting in close for the kill, Aliens are for you. And for those looking for the more traditional style of play, Marines are for you.
I’m amazed at how well balanced the game really is. The two sides’ playstyles have a tendency to be quite different. While it's true that Marines feature medium range combat and Aliens need to get in very close, that imbalance is beautifully compensated by the Alien’s ability for sneak attacks, stealth, silence, the available health of each side, and also that the maps are designed for close quarters combat. All advantages that one side appears to have ends up getting lost due to the rest of the game design. The architects really did their homework!
The flip side is the Aliens faction features an unorthodox style of play for the genre in general. For many gamers, particularly those that are Casual Gamers, games in the FPS category that stand out would be: Call of Duty, Battlefield, and even Destiny to some extent. For those who really like FPS games, some other games that might come to mind would be Sniper Elite, Command and Conquer Renegade, and perhaps to some extent Star Citizen, should that ever reach production. Those who play games of this nature will naturally be drawn to the Marines, as the style of play is not too dissimilar. Aliens would seem foreign by comparison, and many players may be turned off by such a playstyle. The closest style of play like this would be RPG games like World of Warcraft and some parts of Destiny, in which many characters almost demand that you get in close, under the cloak of stealth, to attack. As a result, I would not be surprised if those who play Aliens either prefer the rush of stealth, are familiar with this playstyle, or are reluctant players due to the game's enforcement of balanced teams (+/- 1 player), with more players preferring Marines due to their more familiar gameplay, and ease of understanding the UI and other game elements. For many Casual Gamers, this could have a potential impact on them, which can include how well they play or even if they want to play at all. Those Casual Gamers used to such RPG games, or those who are Serious Gamers and above will have no problem adapting to and overcoming any applicable learning curve. Serious Gamers may even go so far as to say that, “It's just part of the game.” The other thing to keep in mind, for those gamers who do not like RTS games, RTS is a required element of the game, and each team must have a commander. If you happen to be on a team where no one wants to be commander, well... someone has to be a commander for the round to start. Not a major “flaw", but something to note for those who do not like RTS.
RTS Overview
The secondary, yet still crucial focus of this game, is the RTS side of the house. Each team must have one commander in order for the game to start, and commanders generally focus on overall strategy and logistics. They provide direction, construction blueprints for needed tech and base advancements, and individual fire team assistance. Commanders can easily chat with their teams via the in-game chat, or audio using the mic key (PSA: Left Alt by default). This is great when you are trying to quickly give orders, or otherwise provide the team with an assessment of the situation. Commanders and team members must cooperate, especially when coordinating player attacks with logistical support.
I can't stress enough that FPS and RTS are on two different timescales. The fact that the developers figured out how to mix the two genres... they really know how to make a game! Hopefully other development studios take notes on how UWE accomplished this if they ever try to do something similar. The RTS play style features a familiar gameplay, and for those who have played RTS games before, the only learning curve you may have will be moving around the map, and remembering that you are dealing with humans and not commander-controlled units. All things considered, it’s impressive that this is the extent of the learning curve.
For those wanting to play this game solely for the RTS experience, it's plausible that you may find yourself disappointed. There are only so many servers, and thus, so many games. Each game only has two commanders, one per side. In order to be a commander, you can't just log into commander mode, like in Battlefield 4. You have to go into the server, which may or may not be full, get on the team you want, which, remember, the game enforces balanced teams (+/- 1 player), and if there happens to be a competition for the commander role, get there first. This is why I labeled this as a secondary focus. This game was not meant for RTS players to jump right in as commander like in a standard RTS game. Since I am personally uncertain if having a designated commander option would be a decent improvement, or break the “spirit of the game”, I'll just say it would be a feature that would be nice to have, and leave it at that.
User Interface and Controls Overview
Regardless of your background, this game features the same familiar user interface and standard controls/bindings found in almost all contemporary games within the FPS and RTS genres. For long time players, the learning curve is insignificant. For those who've played Call of Duty or Battlefield, the FPS playstyle, UI, and controls for the Marines are identical. You should not have any issues making the transition.
The only thing that may take you a little time to figure out are the RTS controls. In most RTS games, there may be up to four ways to move around the map. The first is moving your mouse to the screen corners and sides, which moves your map in the same direction your mouse is moving. The second would be click and drag, where you hold down one of the mouse buttons, and as you move your mouse cursor away from the point where you clicked, the map moves in the same direction immediately. The third is the mini-map, where you can click, or click and drag, your mouse cursor and your focus moves to that location. The fourth and final way is using the WASD keys, which features the same movement found in FPS games. Although some of these methods are also available here, the WASD keys are not defaulted to movement. Instead, they are bound to the UI for selecting items. Starting with the top, the QWE keys are bound to the tabs, and the ASDFZXCV keys are bound to the items of that tab, and bound in a manner that lines the keys up with their location on the UI. For those who use the WASD keys for map movements, you'll need to learn a different method to move around. After a review of the key bindings in the Settings menu, it appears that there are key bindings for locations on the map, but that may take some players some time to commit to “muscle memory”.
My initial thought here would be that RTS players may prefer RTS-default controls while FPS players may prefer the current defaults to remain. If I were to give a "nice to have" suggestion, the option to switch default bindings when in commander mode may prove helpful to some players.
Multiplayer
The first thing that immediately stood out to me was that there are actually servers for new and low ranking players. Most games I come across, though they try to do matchmaking to keep similarly ranked players together, sometimes fail, where unskilled players are thrown into games with Hardcore Gamers, and within a few minutes they are going 0-25, with a few hardcore players trash-talking the unskilled players, unfortunately a possibility when Casual Gamers meet Hardcore Gamers. Many MMOs, at this point, try to separate differently ranked groups into different servers, and here, it is no different. It's like the developers planned ahead on a number of things, and this was a great mechanic to think ahead on.
The one area that probably needs a little bit of work is the ability to play with your friends on open servers. For those players looking for the Xbox Live experience, where you can simply form a group, and all jump into a game together and be placed into the same server on the same side -- that won't happen here. It's true you can probably set up your own server for your friends, and although you can easily find your friends using the UI filters, the game enforces balance among the two sides. As a result, you may not all be able to go in and play on the same side in the same game. Some of you may have to play on the other side, be spectators, or wait a round. For players who prefer to play on their own, or don't mind playing the opposing side, the current setup is perfect. For those looking for team play with friends, this area is currently lacking.
General Gameplay Observations and Miscellaneous Thoughts/Opinions
This section is more of my personal opinion, and may be controversial depending on others’ personal preferences and gameplay style. Also, the items below are not listed in any particular order.
First, the RTS UI. To put this in perspective, my favorite top three UIs for games would be the following (in order from least to most favorite): Command and Conquer 3 Tiberium Wars, Command and Conquer Red Alert 2 Yuri's Revenge, and Command and Conquer Tiberian Sun. The one thing I liked about all of them is that I could quickly select a building or production queue from anywhere on the map, without needing to go to the building location to select it (mouse click or number binding). Those who've played these games before will know exactly what I am talking about. With those UIs, a player can quickly cycle through the production queues, select what they want from anywhere, all while never taking their focus from the battlefield. With this UI, in a typical situation, a player does not have the time to click their way through the tabs to get to what they want. They need to memorize the key bindings, as well as the order of the tabs, and what is in each tab. If they’re in the wrong tab, a player will need to know what tab they need to go to, and switch to it first. This is mostly due to the fast pace, close quarters combat nature of the game. If the maps were larger and more open, like the massive maps in Battlefield 4, there would be plenty of time to click your way through such a UI. With this game, a player would need to have access to everything right in front of them. If this game had a UI more like C&C, players could react to situations more rapidly. However, all of that being said, for Serious Gamers and above, chances are they can either react quickly enough in spite of this, so it doesn't become a factor, or they will have set up key bindings to quickly get to the items they use most. Some may even have additional hardware with programmable buttons to assist with that. Casual Gamers, or mobile gamers, would not be able to react as quickly, especially if they are new. However with practice, they may be able to.
Those who are unable to gain the necessary reaction skills to be effective may erroneously attribute this to the game's “complexity”. The game, and its UI, are not complex. It is actually rather straightforward. It may be perceived as complex (I originally wrote "artificially complex", but that doesn't really convey my point accurately) because the user may attribute their inability to respond to events quickly to complexities in the UI, as they may feel that the UI wasn't designed optimally. The reality is that the UI follows practices that are found in almost all RTS games from the late 1990's to present day. However, those UIs were designed for gameplay over large maps (relative to map sizes featured in this game), not close quarters combat. As a result, there is a perceived complexity when players who are struggling with the learning curve ultimately can't keep up and erroneously blame the UI. As much as I feel that a C&C UI may prove more effective, that is my personal preference based on past gameplay, not a "bad design" or an "overly complex game".
One question that has been left open in the last two paragraphs was this... Let's assume that the developers decided to replace their existing UI with a more C&C inspired UI. That is great for blueprints, and dropping supplies, but what about research from some of the buildings? How would you quickly find and start research without going back to select the building by some means? Those who have played Sins of a Solar Empire already have the answer to that. That UI featured a Research button that activated a popup showing the available research tree, and showing the order in which tech could be advanced. Research could be done from that menu, with the player never needing to look away from the currently focused area, short of the popup.
Communications is something else that caught my attention. I made a comment about this game being better suited to consoles, but I would like to explain the context of that comment. By itself, the game would not play better on consoles, but that’s not what I meant. (As we all know, it’s impossible to ever be misunderstood when posting online. lol.) I was playing Battlefield 4, which, those who have played it may remember that EA released a Commander app for iOS and Android tablets. Commanders were able to direct the team based on their overview map, and use their points to drop ammo and vehicles for the team. There wasn't a simple way of communicating with in-game players, which was challenging sometimes when trying to win the game. Of course, I didn’t let that stop me. What I used to do was, my friends and I would start an Xbox Live chat, and we would all talk to each other there. As they would go into the game to play, I would go to the Commander app and join the same server and team as them. This way, as they moved from game to game, I could follow them. Thus, they would be able to describe the battlefield they saw, and I could describe their surrounding area. As they needed help, I was able to provide them with target strikes, vehicles, ammo, etc. It worked really well. I’m going in two directions with this.
The first thing is that this game feels like it lends itself to active communication among teammates. Not to say the game could not be played and won otherwise, but having active communication among the team would enable the quick sharing of intentions among the players, promoting easy cooperation, especially in cases where their individual play styles don't necessarily synergize. For those players who prefer such communications, the gameplay may have been better on a console versus PC. Although game controls wouldn't translate well (I’m remembering C&C for Xbox 360), almost all modern consoles come with a headset, whereas only laptops, all-in-ones, mobile devices and communication-enabled monitors feature built-in audio input. As a result, only players who have such a PC, or are a Serious Gamer (or above) would be able to verbally communicate. All other players would be forced to use text, which may be too slow for Casual Gamers not used to typing while playing (or typing period!), or to forgo communication altogether.
When reviewing the default key bindings in the Settings menu, I noticed something interesting -- the left Alt was the default binding for communications. However, the wording stated that it was for global chat, except for the commander, where it was team chat. Assuming that was not a textual error, this suggests that the commander can talk privately to their team, but the rest of the team is limited to global chat. I've never seen a game where that was true, but I bring this up because there are generally two different command styles when there is any sort of a hybrid: the General and the Logistician. The General is more of an authority figure. They direct their team in their actions and what he/she needs them to do, much like you find playing an RTS game. The Logistician is more the opposite. The team organizes and executes on their own, requesting support from their commander. When I mentioned the Battlefield 4 Commander app and how my friends and I used to play, I would fall into the Logistician category. Instead of me organizing them, they played their way and I supported them when asked, while describing the environment around them. With that said, if that wasn't a textual error, then the game lends itself more to the General playstyle versus the Logistician, which may potentially limit gameplay possibilities as only play styles suited towards a General would be encouraged while a Logistician style would be inhibited. If that was just a typo, then this observation is not valid.
I find the game lobby very intriguing, to the point where I almost don't know what to make of it. Normally when I see a game start up, it places you directly into the game and assigns you to a team automatically. A few games, like Star Wars Battlefront 2 (2005) for example, allowed you to pick a side. This game makes it like a mini FPS game, where you run to the door for the team you choose (or spectator if you want). The only game I’ve seen come close to this was the main campaign of one of the later Call of Duty games.
Speaking of campaigns, it’s interesting to note that this game has no single player or co-op mode of any kind. Of course, many other games don’t either, including World of Warcraft, EVE Online, and almost every free iOS/Android game out there, but there are also many online games that feature single player capabilities. Call of Duty has a skirmish mode, Destiny has a mixture of MMO and single player elements, Elite Dangerous (an online only game) features a private group mode and a solo mode, SimCity has traditionally been single player, to include the latest version which had multiplayer elements, and most RTS games feature single player modes of some kind. Although many gamers would not find much value to having a single player mode, there is value for those players who just want to hone their skills before playing the game versus real players online. The lack of such mode might make some Casual Gamers nervous as they are aware of their inexperience, and I have met Hardcore Gamers who love to rub it in. Such experiences may diminish the gamer community as the more serious of gamers effectively scare away newer players. The closest similar experience I can think of in comparison is when you are a patron at a restaurant, and you have a bad experience, maybe a bad meal, poor customer service, or a run-in with regular patrons who are disrespectful, and as a result, instead of making a scene by complaining, you just don't go back. Same theory applies here. You either block the player, or you move onto the next game. Although UWE has created separate servers for different levels of gamers, this doesn't address the differences in the extremes between some Hardcore Gamers and some Casual Gamers. I have no other direct thoughts in this area, but this would be something to keep in mind as more players join the community.
At this point, these are the extent of my thoughts. As I play more, this will likely change. And of course, these are just my opinions. The more important question I’d like to hear answered is, what does everyone else think? What would you all like to see?
Many of the things that you praise here, are in fact reactionary changes, not from "thinking ahead". -ie. the rookie only servers. Which in my opinion is no shame - it's easy to forget that UWE is, or at least was, an indie gaming developer with little prior experience of this scale. So to have a company that does try to improve based on feedback, is probably just as valuable as if they thought of everything themselves. That said, even though there's a number of things that we probably all would have preferred were implemented at release.
Also I believe the engine itself is a technical limitation for a single player campaign. However a more basic co-op mode may be possible who know.
What I always thought was awesome in the earlier CoD multiplayer was the killcam, this lets you learn so much faster, about your mystakes, about the map, how the weapons and abilities work and so on and it was already suggested but again engine limitation.
You know theres another game more hardcore that also didnt have any campaign but sill thrives, the Counter Strike series. The difference being that they have a much larger playerbase and with matchmaking and skill seperation in tiers it make it so that casual gamers dont ever cross hardcore gamer and so while they may still feel nervous if its their first game vs real people etc, they can still have a fair challenge, you know they can do something about it. Which in NS2 just doesnt happen outside of the comfy realm of rookie server, you know its binary, once you hit a certain number of hours you cannot go there anymore and you have to join the same 2-3 servers that everyone of any skill plays on.
And it gets worst because there is no other games like NS2 meaning that more people stick around and put up with the problems more than in any other game because its good and unique, there is no remotely similar game to migrate to. It is almost a monopoly for us players who like this game genre. Bottom line there is a uncommonly high concentration of high skill person per low skill person, a small community and and consequently a brutal skill gap once dem newbs lose access to rookie servers.
There used to be a intermediate category called "rookie friendly" servers but it was busted as the playerbase dwindled.
I extremely agree about what you said on commander UI, while it works perfectly it is very much overly technical and the requirement to select every building to access its research menu forces commanders to use the CTRL+ 1-9 shorcuts constantly but yea I dont think everyone even knows about it. So direct result we end up with an incredible amount of near incapable commanders and most of which not trolly folks simply too slow, and learning the correct mechanical pattern, muscle memory and such takes away their attention from the actual game and their actual role, learning the different build orders, common strats etc (which I can count on the fingers of 1 hand) it's not that complicated what is more complicated is lanes securing and ressource tower (RT) defense/attack and rotation (because yes this game also has moba dna)
For alien commander they improved it a lot before you had to research lifeforms upgrades from support structures (shift, crag, shade) now its almost all made from the hive directly, but for marines its still armory > arms lab > proto lab > command station > observatory all have reserachable tech and sometimes must be selected to activate crucial abilites.
There is 1 thing also with marine called recycle, they can sell their structures to refund some res but you must select the structure, then press the recycle button. there is no recycle tool where you just click on a structure to recycle it with 1 click to recycle several in a quick succession, for example if the aliens attack your base or something, instead you must select every single structure seperately and do 2 actions for each and the selection is sometimes a bit weird like it doest register properly but the important is that many commander ui elements are not optimized very much if at all.
Anyway great reading you. I hope you keep enjoying the game even after youre forced out of rookie servers
NS2 is the shit, end of discussion.