Originally Posted by Aldaris
Could you explain this a little further? I'm reading it and it seems to me you're getting gameplay from base geometry mixed up with the actual mechanics of firing weapons. What was bad anout it?
|
It was a mixture of both. You had two extremes dictated by the terrain (vast sprawling outdoors and constrained close combat. There was very little in between, and in each category, you had one group of weapons that dominated. For outdoors, it was snipers. Indoors, it was HA, or explosives. Medium assault rarely held much weight in any scenario as a versatile weapon group, because it's versatility rarely helped.
There were a lot of other specific factors I didn't like about the game: bad netcode, large TTK, generally slower paced combat in terms of speed and agility. Netcode aside, I'm willing to take most of that on a level of personal opinion. But the example above, for me, highlights how certain parts of the game weren't fully thought through. You had fundamental weapon imbalance and rather poorly designed terrain, as far as shooter combat goes. It's a pretty potent combination, and it's one of several reasons I eventually stopped playing the game, even when I had free time for it.