I don’t really agree with the criticism of this review.
For instance saying that the teamwork is impeded because the heavies don’t have as many movement options and no movement gadgets. I don’t think so. If heavies had as much movement options as mediums then pretty much everyone would be playing heavy. Heavy is already exceptionally strong without needing to adopt a specific playstyle (for instance hit and run for light class) and Heavy movement options are nowhere as limited as the author makes is seem, you just need to be a bit more creative and have more map knowledge. As a heavy I can still move around pretty fast by knowing where the ziplines and jump pads are. And if they get destroyed I simply need to be a bit more creative. For instance if there’s a cashout at the top of the building and I don’t have a good way to get up there I just bring the entire building down. The only real weakness of the heavy are the moving platforms, but I’ve seen lights and mediums also struggle with them. There’s no other place on any map that the heavy can’t bring down or have an abundance of jump pads around that place. I’ve also kept goo nades as an option on the heavy because you can use them for movement and defense. Obviously the class is less mobile than medium or light, but not to the point where it would actually impede teamplay.
I do agree that the only really fleshed out gamemode is tournament mode, which can be a significant time commitment, but I don’t think quick cash is as inherently flawed as the author makes it out to be. You can’t just camp a cashout point and wait for the opponent to bring the box to you. There’s a clear benefit to getting the cash box that the author didn’t even mention. There’s always at least 2 cashout points on the map. By controlling the cash box you can choose which cashout point to use. For instance the location of the cashout point matters as well because if everyone on your team is using close range weapons and you start a cashout on an open field you’re just begging to lose that cashout, even one person using a close range weapon usually means the two other teammates have to pick up the slack defending the site. And if one team is camping a cashout point you can always go to the other one, wipe the other team and set up your defenses which then makes it harder for other teams to steal your cashout. Yes, the stakes are the highest at the last moments of cashout, when everyone is trying to take control of the cashout point, but the steps leading up to it can either give you incremental advantages or disadvantages. There’s also an ebb and flow to the match. The stakes are low at the start of the match but it grows and grows until it reaches the high point somewhere during the cashout and then it drops again when a new cash box appears. It gives players time to breathe and recollect
And finally I really don’t get the criticism of the presentation. The author literally says the game is lacking a distinctive identity and then continues to bring up clear design decisions that imply a distinct visual identity. I can understand saying it’s bland or boring or anything like that, but not that there’s no identity. The game is clearly inspired by modernism which at this day and age can feel pretty bland and boring and sterile and unimaginative. But that’s the identity. You don’t look at Mona Lisa and say “what’s the big deal, it’s just a portrait”. Well you can, but then nobody would take you seriously because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Overall I think The Finals has much more depth to it, both in terms of gameplay and visual style, than what the author was able to see.
I don’t really agree with the criticism of this review.
For instance saying that the teamwork is impeded because the heavies don’t have as many movement options and no movement gadgets. I don’t think so. If heavies had as much movement options as mediums then pretty much everyone would be playing heavy. Heavy is already exceptionally strong without needing to adopt a specific playstyle (for instance hit and run for light class) and Heavy movement options are nowhere as limited as the author makes is seem, you just need to be a bit more creative and have more map knowledge. As a heavy I can still move around pretty fast by knowing where the ziplines and jump pads are. And if they get destroyed I simply need to be a bit more creative. For instance if there’s a cashout at the top of the building and I don’t have a good way to get up there I just bring the entire building down. The only real weakness of the heavy are the moving platforms, but I’ve seen lights and mediums also struggle with them. There’s no other place on any map that the heavy can’t bring down or have an abundance of jump pads around that place. I’ve also kept goo nades as an option on the heavy because you can use them for movement and defense. Obviously the class is less mobile than medium or light, but not to the point where it would actually impede teamplay.
I do agree that the only really fleshed out gamemode is tournament mode, which can be a significant time commitment, but I don’t think quick cash is as inherently flawed as the author makes it out to be. You can’t just camp a cashout point and wait for the opponent to bring the box to you. There’s a clear benefit to getting the cash box that the author didn’t even mention. There’s always at least 2 cashout points on the map. By controlling the cash box you can choose which cashout point to use. For instance the location of the cashout point matters as well because if everyone on your team is using close range weapons and you start a cashout on an open field you’re just begging to lose that cashout, even one person using a close range weapon usually means the two other teammates have to pick up the slack defending the site. And if one team is camping a cashout point you can always go to the other one, wipe the other team and set up your defenses which then makes it harder for other teams to steal your cashout. Yes, the stakes are the highest at the last moments of cashout, when everyone is trying to take control of the cashout point, but the steps leading up to it can either give you incremental advantages or disadvantages. There’s also an ebb and flow to the match. The stakes are low at the start of the match but it grows and grows until it reaches the high point somewhere during the cashout and then it drops again when a new cash box appears. It gives players time to breathe and recollect
And finally I really don’t get the criticism of the presentation. The author literally says the game is lacking a distinctive identity and then continues to bring up clear design decisions that imply a distinct visual identity. I can understand saying it’s bland or boring or anything like that, but not that there’s no identity. The game is clearly inspired by modernism which at this day and age can feel pretty bland and boring and sterile and unimaginative. But that’s the identity. You don’t look at Mona Lisa and say “what’s the big deal, it’s just a portrait”. Well you can, but then nobody would take you seriously because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Overall I think The Finals has much more depth to it, both in terms of gameplay and visual style, than what the author was able to see.