Recent reviews by bug boy

there's a fake squad clone on steam allegedly made by the same company don't believe the lies this is the real one.

the game's core is alright when you're in smaller skirmishes at far flags but all of battlefield's mistakes other than game performance are present and i barely hear anyone talk or play music through mics now. surely plastering a puritan warning about no-nos wouldn't kill even safe approved humor, right?

how they made this a worse coop game than their previous games i'll never know.

I remember playing the BF4 beta on the PS3 and being about as disgusted as I was with this game's beta. I later bought it for cheap on PC ~3 years later which is about the same time period as when I bought 2042 for more or less the same price on steam from launch. Where BF4 did redeem itself with refining balance/good maps and community support via community servers/browser, this game only goes about halfway with content (decent weapons, sadly the 2042 maps aren't good) and decent ideas to justify terrible game design (too little, too late and often two steps back) and then fumbles the ball with the most horrendous lag compensation I've experienced since early COD titles. Only worth it on sale if you've already played the previous ones to death but be prepared to drop it quick after you've unlocked everything outside of the battlepass.

1. I like that you can use any weapon on any class though each class is more proficient with certain weapon classes. Therefore if you want to level up a weapon or weapon class you aren't pigeonholed into a class you don't enjoy for a few hours (I would've loved this hunting service stars/dog tag masteries in 3 and 4). However, the only reason this exists is to justify the classless operator system this was at launch and "introducing" classes only did so much. After about a weekend of play I can count the times I've been revived in regular matchmaking on one hand probably because there's dozens of the same in-meta NOT support operator.

2. There is crossplay so this may get the longevity older Battlefield and COD titles have had on consoles and these players are often cannon fodder if you're into seal clubbing. The double-edged sword is that these players are usually on your team and squad. SO don't expect anything resembling teamplay or squad revives in regular matchmaking revived due to this and the confusing mess that is a player's class (see 1). Even though being a cohesive squad has never been easier with all the tools and abilities at your disposal (one good Support(medic) can hold a line or push), you'll rarely see it happen unless you exclusively play with friends (the time for that was at launch, very sad) or as medic.

Another downside I would attribute to crossplay is the menus. You know the drill: confusing, ugly and funneling you to the Battlenite store for little Timmy to splurge his allowance and stolen credit cards. The in-game UI also suffers from an ugly-stick beating too but that's just my opinion.

3. The dedicated servers for matchmaking are absolutely shocking. Considering all the work and years BF4 had to endure to fix its netcode and hit registration (remember CTE?) and that community servers shared the workload with official servers, the fact that even now in a regular match if you're running across a field (and you will be, see 4) your character stops for half a second every 5 seconds or so as if there's some lag compensation really feels next-gen. I've also had instances where I'm pulling out a grenade or medic bag to deploy right as a lag compensation happens and I'm shooting into the ground like an idiot.

Of course, this is only speculation since even though a scoreboard was implemented (too long after launch) it doesn't tell you anything about your ping. Maybe there's an option to enable it but it obvious why, again, it's poor design. Even on crappy internet in the boonies I've never had such problems in an online game. I'm staggered that after all the work they've put into this title to date the sum is a sub-par experience due to this. I would put the joint blame on said lack of third-party server support and the crossplay (see 2) since I'm sure Joe Blow playing on his original Xbox One doesn't know or care. Even BF3 on PS3 had third-party servers but 2042 gets no such small mercy from this mortal sin.

4. The 2042 maps suck. I'm sure someone higher up knew this so that's partially why Portal exists and were integrated into the 64-player queue. Unfortunately since servers are disbanded after the match ends you'll be playing on the same couple (crummy) 2042 maps. In my experience, I've only played on Exposure in the queue that does have remastered older battlefield maps (Noshahr my beloved). It's just a shame MM never deigned to give me one since gunplay feels the best it's ever been when the server is behaving (see 3). The only 2042 map I can say I've enjoyed is Redacted, but there's a big problem when the best map you have is an Operation Metro clone with meh theming that may never be played again once the 24/7 queue goes away.

On the topic of theme, the "story" is dumb. The farther your story gets from one nation's army vs. another nation's army, the less stake and suspension of disbelief a player can apply. Dwindling resources forcing countries in the future to brawl to just live a little while longer is a good and fairly grounded concept. Think BF3's aftermath DLC and how each side's playermodels differed from base game in how roughed-up they looked. Hell, even how the voicelines in BF3 aided gameplay and immersion with each side speaking their respective languages. Unfortunately operators make such passive storytelling and masterful touches impossible and are frankly tone-deaf even without the infamously cringy voicelines. You'll be dependent on the red enemy outlines and you'll like it since you and your team's player characters are fighting themselves even though every game starts with the announcer telling you to "defeat the Russians/Americans!"
Every time this happens I just picture Dr. Evil saying "Russians" or "Americans" complete with air quotes. Of course, most won't care about this but its yet another example of a lack of cohesion.

5. Calling in vehicles/ammo/the robot dog sounds nice in theory but it's a gimmick. Most of the time when you realize you need a vehicle to get to the next point you're already in an open field and fiddling with the summon menu has lead to headshots to my dome more often than not. I'm sure it's a matter of adjusting playstyle and getting used to it (at least no one can steal a summoned jeep) but since grabbing spawned vehicles is more intuitive it's a plain and simple gimmick. Too bad even the cut-down 128->64 player maps require you to use them since they're often needlessly battle-royale-esque big. At least I like the Osprey since most players intuitively hover them above enemy objectives as a spawnpoint (even older battlefields don't have this happen much if ever).

6. Weapon balance feels alright. Nothing really stood out to me during play as OP like the PP-29 was in the beta which is probably thanks to the attachment swap system. I got a little use out of it but usually left it alone (not explained well but the innermost square are the attachments you spawn with). Adding Portal weapons probably helped too. It's just a shame not all were added given the amount of work done to put them in the game just to languish behind subsets of Portal (1942 who?).

7. Portal... It's there. I like that you can "host" them yourself but no TBG-like servers exist and suffers from the same unpleasant lag compensation (see 3) and additionally has very few people playing even with crossplay. All that was available were PvE, infection and poor man's Hardcore. Also can't unlock the G3A3 (my wife, my raifu if you will) for normal 2042 MM so I played enough to unlock the 1911 and didn't touch it again. Don't expect to relive BF3 or other games.

tl:dr: everything good about and eventually added to 2042 is countered by poor core design decisions that can and will never be fixed. Only buy on sale if you still hanker for battlefield action and nothing else about what made older battlefields work.

beta review:
why yes, i could try to cap the objective with no cover and no teammates. or i could just sh!tpost with text-to-speech on.

10/10 best evolution of trashtalk that this pos holds back due to no all chat

it's harder to control semi-auto with intermediate cartridges in this game than full rifle rounds from a garand in squad: post scriptum. not a good look but pretty funny the publisher honestly thought no one would realize the difference now that the names are so similar. go play that one before they ruin it too.

below is what i thought before:

This is the gaming equivalent to the bridge scene in Apocalypse Now.

Everyone's running around trying to keep the single FOB from going down in a rain of explosives while the SLs have long since checked out.
No one has ever seen an objective.
One of the MGs is shooting friendlies.
Someone in your squad is playing creepy circus music through his mic even though it's been at least an hour since setup time.
LAT/HATs are angels of death.
Get banned from server for saying the word ♥♥♥♥ into your microphone because it's obscene.

Best psychological FPS.

be wary of bug

BIG EDIT:
-------
After about a year it seems the pieces are coming together for a great experience.
Whatever the reason, the game runs much better now once I turned down some settings to hold at 60fps rock-solid in Versus. I did encounter some drops in co-op but, as the new night versions of the existing maps are pretty fun, I don't see much reason to play it unless to warm up.

In regards to the killcam, i didn't think I'd like it at first. I think a more appropriate name would be "kill direction" as it doesn't highlight your killer's body. Regardless, it does a good job of cutting down on the slog that is death-chaining found in NWI games as the matches I played were much faster pace yet still very tactical (pie-slicing pays dividends). This results in a much more fun and fluid experience in Versus which convinced me to change my review from negative to a positive recommendation.

HOWEVER it seems some seemingly capable systems still have trouble getting good performance so I'd be ready to refund if this happens to you.

-------

Some of the best shooter gameplay I've experienced in years. They took everything great about Insurgency and the commander feature from Day of Infamy and made a game on an engine that doesn't limit the game's potential right out of the box. What this game does right it does so right. Only problem right now is the optimization of which they're making visible progress (couldn't even run the game at low but I'm now around high settings). RS2: Vietnam had an instanced rendering option that paid serious framerate dividends for those with older CPUs/newer GPUs(on the previous iteration of this game's engine), so hoping for something similar in the future isn't too far-fetched.

While I appreciate the move to a new game engine, I really don't understand why so many hidden options that make the game look better are tied to the motion blur. I guess this is typical for Unreal Engine and, as far as motion blur goes, it's probably the best I've seen for a comp shooter( seriously, turn it on). Though it turned me and I'm sure others off when it ends up looking worse with motion blur off compared to other NWI titles.

Regardless, my first sentence of this review was not exaggerated. The game has quite a ways to go yet at a fair price of ~$27 if you have the Insurgency standalone. If you're on the fence because of performance just keep an ear to the dev blogs and get ready to pull the trigger.

EDIT: I wish I understood how Squad runs better than this game. My computer crashes after every other match in Sandstorm while in Squad I have gone a few hours per several sessions with no issues. Damn shame because this game should be the better experience. Guess we gotta wait for a couple more years until the game finds a resurgence like the last Insurgency.

This is the best serious zombie game to ever be made. Of course, that's quite a claim to make for a game that's ~4 years old, but I have never really played anything like it. I went in thinking it'd be trash (certainly, in 2014 for $60 it was garbage) but it held my attention with its smooth movement and combat system as well as its perfectly-sized map.

Plays and feels great alone especially when night falls and rain starts to fall. Just getting cozy in one of the safe houses without NPCs, looking out into the dark (ACTUAL pitch dark) where you can hear Volatile zombies hunting makes you feel very, very alone. Whenever I went out alone, I had to make sure that I'd get back to a safehouse before dark which adds a cloud of tensions over your head at all times due to fast travel being only available between areas and not between safehouses in the same area.

If you have a few friends, you can get some fun coop action even in the DLC which I highly recommend as it adds a new area as well as a new gameplay element with the offroader in order to traverse it. There are a few jumpscares to be had especially when taking out Volatile nests which are crazy difficult even with extra hands. Trading is simple and teamwork for some portions is essential.

Lots of zombie games either takes themselves way too seriously or are completely bonkers. This game at launch was in the former camp, but is now more ambiguious in tone (good and bad, as the story is meh). If you want to play it serious, nothing's stopping you. If you want to goof off and kick zombies off roofs that's cool too.

If you can snag the game + DLC for under $20, even solo play is worth it.

Many people like to compare this to Minecraft. They say that it is a 2D Minecraft, and it has many of the same mechanics and feel. While both games are blocky, sandbox games, most of the similarities end there.

The feel of Terraria is much less solitary & retro than Minecraft, as there are many NPCs for your town to call its citizens, each one can barter and offer services. It's like you're making your own story without much help from the game.

The worlds you generate in Terraria are finite. There is a world's end(JACK NOOOO), rather than the infinite landscapes of Minecraft. Most might see this as a con, until you realize that, on a medium world, it would take a very long time to explore every little cave not connected to a cave system, each having a chance to have a underground house filled with loot.

The loot is different too. In Minecraft, you gather a bunch of diamonds(a tedious task) and make a sword, armor, & tools. And that's the best you can get until you enchant. Most mobs don't have anything good after you get diamond stuff. Terraria has many different mobs, with many different kinds of loot(especially during Hardmode). The generated structures are even better. The Dungeon is an example, with entry only plausable after you defeat Skeletron, one of the many unique bosses you must defeat.

The weapons are endless. They are divided into the three basic Medieval RPG classes. Warrior(Melee), Ranger(Ranged), and Mage(Magic). You can also find and craft armors and accessories that can boost your type.

I could write an endless essay about Terraria. But I could write even more about the Vanity items(things that go over your armor that can make you look like anything[Such as a wizard, in my case]). Any TF2 player can appreciate limitless aesthetics.