Slix 最近的评测

This game is very buggy and unpolished in its current state. I genuinely can't believe that this game currently has 81% (76% in last 30 days) positive reviews. That's why you should focus on the content of the reviews and also look at negative / recent ones.

The good:
+ The game runs well
+ The price is cheap
+ The ambiance has some atmosphere

The bad:
- Lots of jank
- It feels very empty/barebones
- Broken AI (mainly pathing, but spawn and attack behaviour are bad too)
- EXTREMELY broken audio (missing sounds, sound occlusion too aggressive, voice volume far too loud)
- One of the worst looking settings menus I've ever witnessed

For some reason, Steam denied the refund request for my friend's own copy, who also gifted the game to a few mates in our group. Funnily enough, the refund requests for those gifted copies have gotten approved...

Neato

I've written a throrough review on Battlefield 6's MP mode, but this BR mode doesn't deserve it.

Simply put, it's a mediocre copy of CoD: Warzone, with even worse gunplay and audio. The devs should've spent all of their development time on the MP mode instead.

Pine Studio is a lovely dev team. They treated the first game very well and earned my trust.

Now the sequel has arrived, and it improves upon its predecessor in every way. My highlights are the beautiful lighting, more interesting puzzles, and interactivity. I can't wait to see what the devs and community are cooking. ES2 is off to a great start! :lunar2019piginablanket:

Compared to Battlefield 4 or V, Battlefield 6 barely improves in some aspects and greatly regresses in others. I feel like this game is only well received because people are comparing it to the previous game (2042), which was horrible. While BF6 looks pretty on the outside, the flaws are starting to appear once you take a closer look.

Before I get into detail, let me preface this by saying that I've rarely seen a community be this out of touch with the franchise they're raving for. There are people who seriously think that Battlefield is anywhere near the milsim genre. This is completely wrong. The last few Battlefield games are all fast paced arcade shooters that are easy to get into. None of them are slow paced (hardcore) games that try to be very realistic beyond the graphics. People act like you couldn't jump around and airstrafe with 100% air control in Battlefield 4, dump entire mags without facing the sky due to recoil, and kill enemies within less than 200 milliseconds. Advanced players might even know about movement techs like the rouzou, vouzou, zouzou etc. BF1 and BFV didn't have this exact type of movement, but traversal and fights were still fast.

I'm going to talk about the multiplayer mode. Out of the first 72 hours since release, I've spent 44 hours on this game.

UI/UX/Progression:
You're going to be greeted by a charmless menu that seems to take great inspiration from Call of Duty and Netflix. It's hard to navigate through and lacks any form of overview. When customizing your classes, you'll see that you barely have anything unlocked, even after leveling up for a bit. Most weapons, attachments, and some gadgets are locked behind high player or weapon level requirements, or challenges you have to complete. In general, this game really tries to drive engagement as much as possible by making players grind levels. Conveniently, the game offers a temporary solution by providing XP boosts. Now, if you've played BF4, this isn't anything new. What's new, however, is that XP boosts are now running out in real time, just like in CoD. You heard me. You can now enable your XP boost for an hour, play for thirty minutes, and lose the rest of it if you don't keep playing.

The devs are planning to lower some level requirements and increase end-of-match and daily-challenge XP rewards. I still wanted to mention this, as it shows how out of touch the devs are in some aspects. The craziest part about this is the challenge for the third sniper rifle. The second challenge requires you to eliminate 250 enemies with headshots over 200 meters. Most maps don't even provide the necessary distance to achieve that!

Gunplay/Balancing:
The shooting mechanics are some of the worst out of any Battlefield game. Weapons are ridiculously inaccurate, whether you're standing still or moving. It makes fights more inconsistent and less skill based. It also makes "headglitching" stronger. The balancing is pretty bad as well. There are a handful of weapons (Vector, M433, M4A1 carbine, Pumpgun) that dominate on close to mid range. Most of the other guns are weaker or even less reliable. The devs should simply copy the gunplay out of Battlefield V, which genuinely had the best shooting mechanics in the Battlefield series. Weapons were more accurate and strong but satisfying recoil. It just felt very clean and fair. In BF6, some animations like weapon kick and landing while ADS are obstructing the view too much and becoming a nuisance. Besides all the inconsistency, everyone can still laser someone in a short time and even on longer distances. It's honestly very frustrating and I'm baffled by the design decisions. There are plenty of ways to balance the effective range of a weapon without adding pointless RNG. Aspects like damage, damage dropoff, headshot damage, recoil, bullet drop, bullet velocity and fire rate should be altered.

The netcode is making things worse. Dying behind cover is very common and shots sometimes don't register, although I believe that the latter is mostly caused by bullet spread.

It's not a skill issue. I don't want to flex, but I'm dominating in most of my matches and I've got VERY good aim and movement. People who defend this RNG nonsense are usually the ones who need to rely on randomness to have better odds of winning fights. Or perhaps they're simply lacking experience and think that realism is more important than gameplay in a videogame.

Maps:
I prefer infantry only and close quarter combat maps like Operation Locker, Operation Underground and Operation Metro in the previous installments, yet I also found some of the bigger conquest maps enjoyable because of their design. Siege of Shanghai, Rotterdam, and Devastation are some good examples. You could use vehicles but you could also be on your feet and have normal fights without being dominated by vehicles. In BF6, some maps are good, some are mediocre, and some are just very unenjoyable and plain. Perhaps the maps are too small and need more cover? The maps I like the most are Empire State, Manhattan Bridge and Siege of Cairo. Despite liking CQB maps and fighting tons of people at once, I feel like there's barely any room to breathe.

While the destruction system is a neat improvement over the previous games, I miss Levolution from BF4. Some of the scripted events looked very cool and had a major impact on the layout of the map. I feel like BF6 is lacking some of these epic moments. The maps are very pretty, with some having lots of detail and cool things can still happen on all of them. I just don't think that the maps themselves are the reason for that. Some of them also seem to have been spent little development time on. (New Sobek City)

Movement:
I greatly welcome the addition of sliding and rolling upon landing, as it makes traversing much more fluid and adds a bit more depth to the game. Contrary to popular belief, movement is slower when compared to all of the previous few installments. I wouldn't complain if movement got a bit faster, but I think it's in a decent spot.

Vehicles:
The controls feel better, yet too similar to BF2042 and far inferior compared to BF4. I want to mention that painting vehicles is insanely broken. You have zero chance of evading lock on missiles when painted. Maps are cluttered with anti tank mines. Jets don't have any upgrades and there is no naval combat. I find it absurd that in some matches, players camp helicopter spawns, so you never get a chance to enter them, while in others, inexperienced players get air vehicles destroyed instantaneously.

Performance:
Nowadays most games perform awfully bad, but this game runs and looks pretty well. Kudos for allowing players to disable TAA and upscaling.

Technical issues:
I've encountered quite a lot of issues. Some are amusing while others are worsening the experience:
- Dying behind cover
- Shots not registering
- Broken blowtorch audio playing while holstered
- Chopper gunner POV jumps around when zooming in
- Getting stuck
- Missing or broken animations
- Crazy ragdolls
- Janky gadget placement
- Camera detaching from player
- Broken map search
- Vehicles not spawning
- Unable to pick up ammo

Conclusion:
Battlefield 6 is a flawed yet enjoyable game that's not worth 70€. Overall, I think it is closer to BF2042 than it is to the amazing games that are BF4 and BFV. You can get BF4, BF1 and BFV and still have 55€ left while also having a more refined and content rich experience. This game would've really benefited from another few months in the oven and more inspiration from previous installments. If you really want to play, I recommend getting EA play for a month or wait for a sale. I think most of the flaws are actually fixable, but it's up to the developers and EA to make this game rise above Battlefield's finest games. Only time will tell. Devs/EA/community, please take a look at every Battlefield before 2042 and look at what made these games great.

"Sometimes, I dream about cheese." -male01, Half-Life 2

One of the most beautiful and creative games I've ever played. This game is 100% worth experiencing.

Base game is fun. A bit janky, but interesting and challenging early on. The story is pretty short and we felt that we didn't need to build anything. The game gets super easy once you learn about everything tho.

SoA, on the other hand, is a tedious and repetitive grindfest. If that's the only way to motivate people to build something and try out the other content, that's kinda lame tbh. Still props for making all the content free of charge.

Boring af. I nearly fell asleep for real.

silly little game :DD