Panther, they could have fixed things in Beta. They didn't, and they still don't know what they're doing regarding balancing, there's no PvE, no market. So how is it 10/10 fanboy war raven scrub?

In response to the title of this thread I would have to say both blind and stupid. That's pretty much the definition of a fanboy...

Anyone who says this game is "great" or "awesome", and anyone who tells you to "just quit" when you point out a flaw, is by default a fanboy, because this game by any measure is not great or awesome... but simply okay.

I can say that, even while Dust is the only game I play right now, and I am fairly addicted to it too. Does that mean this game is great? Nope.

I play it a lot because I like to win. I go pure in one thing and enjoy stomping people... and I get really angry when I run face first into a major flaw. Just because I play a lot does not mean the game is great.

That said, posting figures on how many people are playing what game, has no bearing on how good a game is. Sure, the game might be a success as far as CCP's marketing department is concerned.... but it's still just an okay game.

The vast majority of the 5,000 players in Dust are fanboys from Eve... you can pretty much remove those people from your comparissons... but then again you can't really compare to something like MW because that game is riff with fanboys as well.

So if looking at how many people play a game is an inaccurate measure for the quality of a game, then what is an accurate measure? Simple, just go back to the basics....

1. Mechanics.... how well does the game perform? FPS, movement of both infantry and vehicles, aiming, hitboxes, accuracy and falloff (or hard stop in this case), etc etc

2. Visuals... how good does the game look? Again FPS, character models, character textures, map textures and design, map object models and map object textures, lighting, particle effects, etc etc

3. Gameplay.... how interesting is the actual game play? For example modern warfare is the worst FPS in history because it has no interesting gameplay, run and gun run and gun.... at least dust has objectives and vehicles. MW is only popular because of preteens who never heard of real first person shooters.

4. Interaction... what kind of, and what quality of interaction with other players?


There are of course more basic elements to measure a game... but these are the primary ones. So then lets see how dust stacks up....

1. Mechanics.... NEAR FAIL! Sadly, the latest patch nearly destroyed the mechanics, and this is the one biggest complaint I have seen from players who just started playing on the 14th. Aiming is jacked up for both infantry and vehicles, mostly for vehicles. The hitboxes are ridiculously small and the bullet falloff isnt a falloff, its a hard stop.

2. Visuals... Dust 514 looks like a game built in 2006, not 2013. There is really no excuse for this except CCP being VERY CHEAP by using an engine that was built for a really old game, instead of building their own engine. However, without using that old engine Dust would not exist today... it would have been too expensive for CCP to get people behind the idea of Dust, unless there was an already built engine, albeit old.... it did work...

This category will be what holds back CCP in the next couple years, and may be the reason for its ultimate demise because unless they build a nice fancy new engine in the next 2 or 3 years, they will not be able to compete with EA Game's newest engine that they will likely have in 3 years. Along with the rest of the gaming industry. It will be like choosing to play 007 on the N64, or battlefield 6 on the PS4... what would you choose?

3. Gamplay... This is Dust's best category, somewhat ironicly considering the amount of hype generated by CCP to get people to believe dust was TOTALLY integrated with Eve... but sadly that isnt really true. Very little of what happens in Eve affects Dust, and vice versa. VERY little. Sure you will say "THE FUTURE!!!" but that is the future and this is today... Dust may very well be a great game in the future, but today its just an "okay" game.

There are plenty of games with a whole lot more interesting gameplay that dust... pretty much any major FPS aside from modern warfare has more interesting gameplay. The only thing that has kept me playing and spending money on dust, is tanks... which are being destroyed... so yea.. that might not last long.

With everyone screaming nerf this and break that... there will eventually be nothing worth doing except run and gun run and gun just like modern warfare except with crappy graphics and even crappier mechanics.

4. Interaction.... meh... nuff said.

So as you can see (unless your a blind fanboy, then you can't see shyt) Dust really is just an okay game.

There really should be no debate after reading this, unless your just a stupid fanboy... because everything I have listed above is not a matter of opinion, but solid fact. FACT, so please just shut up already.