I swear, if I hold onto the grenade any longer, it will explode in my hand...
SuperBlueMonkey wrote this review on .
One thing you'll get confused by, or some of you will, as I did, is that there are three sorts of currency to spend on improving your character and buying augmentations, skills and drop suits. You've got your experience points (which to an extent are a form of currency), the actual currency in the game and then currency the player has to buy from the marketplace. I don't mean to knit pick but that's basically stupid. Experience points should work like they do in Call Of Duty (not that I want to use that as an example as I'm not a fan) and Halo. The more experience you get the higher the rank. And experience should be based on how often and accurate you are with each weapon. You shouldn't have to use your experience points to buy how good you are with a weapon. Currency should be used to buy new weapons. Weapons that only become available when you reach certain ranks through earning experience points. Instead you are given your experience points and currency/ money to with what you please and gain skills in the direction you want to gain skills. For me, this doesn't work and it's blatantly obvious that it doesn't work for the game either. I started a new character to spend my money and experience points a bit more wisely and so I'm placed back into the "Instant Battle Academy" (beginners) class of games. I was pretty shocked to see someone with a chain-gun already, just mowing players down. How has this player got a chain-gun already and why on earth is he playing in an academy battle? I reached a similar situation with a different character, this time out of the academy battles. It just became increasingly frustrating to kill someone because they're either all armoured to the teeth or got superior weaponry. Why was this happening? A very simple game design mistake of unbalanced game mechanics. The problem is that there is no ranking system so a noob, straight out of the academy could be facing an expert in their next game who is probably armed to the core. It's silly and too dominating.
Questions that the developers need to ask themselves are why is Halo or COD multiplayer so popular? What is it about them that works? It's all even when each game begins. There is no superior weaponry or armour going into the game - you might find something to help you for a limited period of time on the map but otherwise, everyone is equal and has an equal chance to win. It's what makes it competitive and fun. Plus throwing a grenade doesn't take the best part of a century unlike Dust 514 - I don't think I've ever played a game where it is so slow to throw a grenade.
Whilst it is early days and the kinks are still be ironed out, there is plenty to explore with your character but really nothing to explore with the maps. It is quite simply an online frag-fest. It's not an MMOFPS. If it was an MMOFPS, I would continue playing simply because there would/ should be more to it than this - like an RPG element similar to EVE. Because there is no such thing. whilst not bad as a freebie, is genuinely a sorry state of affairs. Buggy, unbalanced and in some areas, poorly executed. Too many types of currency. Games are mismatched. Needs a ranking system based on how you play not how you want to play. Grenade throwing is ridiculous and there simply is no story. Was I expecting too much? From the people who made EVE? No, I don't think so.