I would say it’s closer to Squad with a managed economy system on top of it. BF has no economy management. Or FoB building, or logistics trucks running resources to build FoBs.
Sure, it’s got that aspect, though if you consider it close to Squad, a relatively slow-paced mil-sim, which prioritizes teamwork and not individual play, and not Battlefield, then you’re crazy. Squad has Battlefield DNA in it, so if it’s like Squad then it’s also like Battlefield. It’s far closer to BF though, from what I’ve seen, in my opinion, and I’m an avid Squad player.
Starting to sound like there are two different types of players arguing here: mil-sim fans who think it’s similar to BF because it isn’t very realistic. And gamers, who think it’s not like BF because the gameplay isn’t very similar.
Yeah, after watching it, I mostly disagree with the Squad comparisons. It has FOBs, building, and logistics, like Squad, but most of the gameplay is pretty casual and very similar to Battlefield.
The weapons feel like Battlefield, with low recoil and everyone using full auto always. It also seems you’re encouraged to just lob rockets and tank rounds at helicopters flying around. It’s very Battlefield. You’re a little slower than Battlefield, but there’s no stamina or anything. It’s very much an evolution of Battlefield, with some milsim elements, probably the most obvious being that you can’t spawn on your squad, so respawns are expensive in time.
(It actually reminds me a lot of M.A.G., but there’s very few who remember that.)
Okay I just finished playing over an hour, I have to fully disagree with it being closer to BF. If you like Squad you’ll like this, but there’s no dedicated kit like BF or Squad. You have inventory management like Arma, and you have to pack your magazines. You can specialize however you want to your play style. The maps are absolutely massive. The vehicles have a lot of weight to them and overall the pacing is close to Squad and Arma. The first match from start to finish took about an hour and 40 minutes.
Obviously a lot of these games have some of that BF spirit but this game is much slower in pacing.
Edit: also I’m playing this on Arch, and the game ran flawlessly, with proton 11.
Good to hear. I much prefer the milsim pacing. I was also very disappointed a few months ago when they said Linux support wasn’t planned, and I thought it wouldn’t run. It’s nice to see that isn’t the case.
That’s marketing making you see that, but yeah Squad did spawn of BF, but it’s not as fast paced as battlefield. I watched an hour stream yesterday, it’s got the really slow bits of Squad in its DNA.
I got an invite for the closed beta that starts today. I’ll report back on which it’s closer to.
I would say it’s closer to Squad with a managed economy system on top of it. BF has no economy management. Or FoB building, or logistics trucks running resources to build FoBs.
Sure, it’s got that aspect, though if you consider it close to Squad, a relatively slow-paced mil-sim, which prioritizes teamwork and not individual play, and not Battlefield, then you’re crazy. Squad has Battlefield DNA in it, so if it’s like Squad then it’s also like Battlefield. It’s far closer to BF though, from what I’ve seen, in my opinion, and I’m an avid Squad player.
Starting to sound like there are two different types of players arguing here: mil-sim fans who think it’s similar to BF because it isn’t very realistic. And gamers, who think it’s not like BF because the gameplay isn’t very similar.
Yeah, after watching it, I mostly disagree with the Squad comparisons. It has FOBs, building, and logistics, like Squad, but most of the gameplay is pretty casual and very similar to Battlefield.
The weapons feel like Battlefield, with low recoil and everyone using full auto always. It also seems you’re encouraged to just lob rockets and tank rounds at helicopters flying around. It’s very Battlefield. You’re a little slower than Battlefield, but there’s no stamina or anything. It’s very much an evolution of Battlefield, with some milsim elements, probably the most obvious being that you can’t spawn on your squad, so respawns are expensive in time.
(It actually reminds me a lot of M.A.G., but there’s very few who remember that.)
Okay I just finished playing over an hour, I have to fully disagree with it being closer to BF. If you like Squad you’ll like this, but there’s no dedicated kit like BF or Squad. You have inventory management like Arma, and you have to pack your magazines. You can specialize however you want to your play style. The maps are absolutely massive. The vehicles have a lot of weight to them and overall the pacing is close to Squad and Arma. The first match from start to finish took about an hour and 40 minutes.
Obviously a lot of these games have some of that BF spirit but this game is much slower in pacing.
Edit: also I’m playing this on Arch, and the game ran flawlessly, with proton 11.
Good to hear. I much prefer the milsim pacing. I was also very disappointed a few months ago when they said Linux support wasn’t planned, and I thought it wouldn’t run. It’s nice to see that isn’t the case.
That’s marketing making you see that, but yeah Squad did spawn of BF, but it’s not as fast paced as battlefield. I watched an hour stream yesterday, it’s got the really slow bits of Squad in its DNA.
I got an invite for the closed beta that starts today. I’ll report back on which it’s closer to.