John Battleguy 最近的评测

Yes.

I don't see it replacing Smash games, but Rivals 2 does so much of what attracts people to them. If you enjoy the free movement and sandbox expression that "platform fighters" offer, I recommend trying this game.

But for fellow Smash vets, here are the differences that I can recognize:
~ Melee ~
Rivals 2 has more forgiving technical execution and is generally floatier. Movement all around doesn't feel quite as tight as Melee.
-Input buffer exists
-L-Cancelling is replaced with hitfall. Instead of SHFFLing, you can fast fall immediately after landing an aerial. You'll have to re-train your muscle memory
-Your controls are fully customizable and I encourage you to experiment with the L stick deadzone
-All your moves autocancel, so your combo speed is dependent on learning to hitfall
-Shields don't shrink, but they do break
-Airdodge doesn't cause freefall state
-Recoveries feel closer to Ultimate. Wall jumps out of special moves are a thing. Most stages have walls to jump off of like Yoshi's. As a Melee/P+ player, I think it's a net improvement in game flow.
-Shield drop doesn't require you to mutilate your controller with notches
-The developer isn't actively trying to kill your grassroots community

~ PM/P+ ~
Rivals 2 has more forgiving windows for tech execution. Precision movement on the ground seems harder to execute.
-Standard B-reverse exists, but the double reverse for the fadeback does not
-Honestly, nothing else yet and P+ players are GOATed so you probably already bought this game before reading the review
-Everything from Melee too
-No foreseeable Cease and Desist in the future


~ Ult ~
Rivals 2 is faster, heavier, and more technical - most comparable to Project +. If you have only played Smash 4 and Ultimate, you will have to practice this tech, but you won't have to un-learn as many habits from other Smash games.
-Parry is it's own button and acts similar to shield break where your opponent goes into stun for a short time
-Shields don't shrink, but they do break
-Combos are more comparable to previous titles
-Analog deadzones are customizable and I recommend you tinker with them
-Ledgehogging mechanic exists
-More walljumping in recovery process
-The developer isn't releasing their 14th sword-based character while BLATANTLY ignoring Tall Purple Man

~ 64 ~
Is cool


Shoutouts to Simpleflips.

♥♥♥♥♥♥ Sekiro.

Huge disappointment. Too many cutscenes. Barely any combat. Tedious levels.

Not worth buying at any price.

Total Warhammer is a costly, but worthwhile investment if you want a RTS game with replay value.

Everything you buy is packed into this game. TW:W 1 and 2 factions are ported over along with their DLC. The variable playstyles with each faction. I can always come back to this game.

The elephant in the room is price points. I agree with every complaint, but I'll just tell you to pick things up on sale and, as long as you're not buying one of the half-assed DLCs like Ogre Kingdoms, you're getting great value.

If CA has a sale. Pick up the first game along with this. It gives you access to most of the "vanilla" factions and allows you to play with all the fancy schmancy updates the third game provides. From there, just get what you want. Warhammer has a lot of flavor to its world and the Total War trilogy captures the best of it.

Hope you get your money's worth. Give it time, you'll get there.

Bought this for the local co-op.

Except there isn't any.

The core of the game is great, but developers seem to rely too much on the modding community.

I can't recommend this game due to the amount of stupid contained within it.

It's little quality of life things that come along the way like a lack of integrated save features. Auto-save can be controlled in the settings and I recommend you do that or a crash can lose you 30 min of gameplay, but I just recently discovered, after literal hours of play, that auto-saves on different characters can overwrite slots, so something simple like wanting to play a different character for a bit can cost you all of your progress if you rely on the auto-save feature.

So I just lost a Tier 4 clan playthrough because I wanted to be Afro Samurai for a bit. That's a lot of needless grinding thrown away for a trivial oversight. I would equate that to Baldur's Gate 3 deleting your entire Act 3 character because you wanted to roll a new one.

There's also no guarantee with what your units will do after you order them around. Micromanagement isn't difficult, its just frustrating. Why can I not target units? Why do my units have an unchangeable set of unit priorities? Why is my small stack of cavalry just standing there waiting to be charged by a spear line instead of moving like they've been told? Why are they charging the same ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ spear line instead of the exposed archers in the back after I've moved them into a perfect position to attack said archers?

All this and more in a cool game with a duct-taped package where sometimes taking the duct-tape off breaks the entire package and the present inside explodes.


I'm going to keep on playing because I want a break from Total War, but I'm unsure of how many more mods I have to install in order to make the gameplay loop free of disappointment.

There is no role-playing to be found in this role-playing game. There is no immersion, quests are shallow in both options and difficulty, combat takes zero thought or tactics, and the stealth system doesn't work.

If you want in-depth role-playing, get Baldurs Gate.

If you want an immersive first-person sim, get Cyberpunk.

If you want an immersive space sim, get Elite: Dangerous, No Man's Sky, or join the cult of Star Citizen.


Developers relying on mods to make a complete package won't fly in Starfield.

Bought on release, waited a year for it to be playable.

It be playable. You can spend your money now.

>Be me, smol time Hive Prince
>Minng copper and looting the dead to scrape by
>Being chased by a horde of bandits through the desert
>See a local noble being escorted by heavily armed bodyguards
>Run towards the safety of the culturally enriched United Cities representative
>"Time to try out my new bow! This bad boy cost more than you could ever earn in a lifetime, you know."
>Shot in leg by noble
>Absolutely *THONKED* by his guards
>Fall face first into the sand and start bleeding out
>Okran please help me
>Grand melee between noble and dust bandits ensues
>Bandits are slaughtered, noble wanders off, satisfied with another day of hunting the most dangerous game
>Waiting for the bonedogs to feed on me
>A group approaches from the West
>Bandaged up by some friendly wandering slave traders
>Given a brand new set of shackles
>"Hippity Hoppity you're my property"
>Carried to safety
>Live out the rest of my days mining copper with free food, highly trained bodyguards, and my very own cage to stay in


10/10 worth paying full price

Here's the stats for people who want a quick yes or no:


I want this game to be great. I'm a half-competitive player, half-social player. I appreciate depth of play and discussing it with like-minded people. Co-operative learning, people helping each other becoming their best selves.


-An option presents a choice for a player to make.

-Players must be given many options when they compete at something.

-Counter-play must exist for each option and must have the same, or more demand in skill as the option it is answering.

-A high-skill option needs an equal-skill or higher-skilled counter-play to answer it.

-Counter-play is considered an option and should therefore also have its own counter-play.

This philosophy causes the skill floor of the competition to gradually raise as player skill increases and creates a natural learning curve

-At a medium/high level of play, a game should feel like a conversation without words. Expressive through your decisions made in the game, understood by your opponents and given a response. This is called Proficiency.

-The more options, the more depth of play

-The more options, the higher the skill cap

-The smaller the skill cap, the shorter amount of time it takes for a community to "solve" a game and for its lifespan to end

This is what I look for in a game worth my time. This is my understanding of how players are rewarded for engaging with the game and its community.


Halo Infinite feels smooth as butter, looks amazing, sounds amazing, and has many intelligently designed maps. I feel like I'm playing a game that was designed with the long-term player in mind. Halo Infinite also plays like an arcade shooter meant for somebody who didn't grow up loving Halo, its pacing, and its skill demands.

Campaign was... fun. Just fun, but a lot of it. They've done better, and I don't feel like this is the "LASO challenge" game I used to spend hours with friends on, but I look forward to doing stupid ♥♥♥♥ with my friends in the sandbox during my downtime. I play a lot of Vermintide 2 now to make up for this hole in my life. It has the same feeling. Adjustable difficulty, player-set pace, fun with friends. Completing LASO weeklies in Halo Reach on weekends is something I still have fond memories of.

Multiplayer also has many pitfalls that reduce a player's options and does not reward active thinking. This has to be broken down in separate parts:

One of the things that I like about the multiplayer is the time spent on your sandbox options, by that I mean, the "creative thinker". You've got potential for outplays when your weapons are trash, but its not a crutch, and its not cheese (small brain, big play). Vehicles, however, feel weak and unimportant when an objective isn't in play.

Team co-ordination feels like its at an all-time high due to the mobility that players have. I love being able to platform myself around the arenas whether its with sprint, grapple, or just smart choices on where to jump and ledge-climb. I've realized that movement is king in a good shooter. An arena is only as fun as a player's ability to navigate it and use their knowledge outmaneuver their opponent. Aiming was never the end all/be all to a classic FPS. Good movement increases demand from aim. Good aim increases demand from movement. Right now, there is either too low or too high a demand for aim depending on circumstances.

Sprint has become very accessible. When Sprint was added in Halo Reach, it was the ultimate utility item due to the options it added compared to other items that would take its spot. This still exists (and now, Grapple Hook is the new Sprint), though players are not punished for using it improperly. Unlimited sprint =/= unlimited options. You are not given a resource to manage. You are given a "Go" button that does not require any commitment to use. This is not a problem on its own, but pairing it with the other multiplayer changes creates a problem with the core Halo product. I did say movement is king in a good shooter.

Good weapons with low skill floors is a way that I would describe the current Halo Infinite meta. Rockets, ARs, Swords. All fun to use, all no-brainer weapons. There are some well-designed guns in this game. Ravager AoE, Shock Rifle crowd control. Lots of utility in different guns.

The Commando is a meme. The Battle Rifle is a shell of its former self. I still don't know what to make of the new covenant DMR. Sniper Rifle is literal counter-play to marksman rifles and invalidates all of these when it is in play.

Marksman weapons have always been the staple of Halo. This game feels like the antithesis of every Halo meta that came before it. I am not rewarded by picking these weapons up, no matter how familiar I am with how to use them. This is not only evident by its own one v. one, static experience i.e. Two players shooting eachother, one with an AR, one with a BR on a flat surface with no external influences, but this is magnified by the design of most maps.

Close-range combat is king by every means. Maps are claustrophobic to anyone not holding onto an AR or a Shotgun. Players can easily out-play marksman rifles on most maps and in most areas of those maps. This benefits faster, rushdown playstyles. This forces high-commitment engagements. This limits options and counter-play. When I see another player inside BR range, whether or not I have one, we are going to fight to the death and it will be over in under eight seconds. Short engagement time leads to less decisions, less options, less counter-play. Short kill time leads to less decisions, less options, less counter-play. Less intelligent gameplay


You're right, but I'm right too. This review is selfish. It's made out of want. Wanting something I've only experienced a handful of times in my life. Every time I have, its come from games that have lived for over a decade. Something hits different with them.

Play the game yourself. The multiplayer is free. While you're playing, I want you to think about the things I pointed out. How many options do you really have when there's another player on the screen? Are you having a conversation, or are you just shouting at each other, hoping to win a screaming match? When do you get to use the sandbox that the designers put you inside? When does the game feel cerebral and reactive to your choices instead of fueled by dopamine from a cool or close kill?

To me, the game is close, but likely too far away from what I want out of my gameplay experience. Too watered down. I hope that changes. I hope movement stays king, but aim requirements are raised. I hope there's a longer time to kill so that players have more opportunities to make smart choices and be rewarded for making the right ones. I'm just one weird player talking about weird gameplay concepts, though. I needed to write this all down so I'm not thinking about it anymore and so I can move on and find something better to do with my downtime.