Friday 29 March 2019

Top 13 Best URL Shortener to Earn Money

  1. Short.am: Short.am provides a big opportunity for earning money by shortening links. It is a rapidly growing URL Shortening Service. You simply need to sign up and start shrinking links. You can share the shortened links across the web, on your webpage, Twitter, Facebook, and more. Short.am provides detailed statistics and easy-to-use API.
    It even provides add-ons and plugins so that you can monetize your WordPress site. The minimum payout is $5 before you will be paid. It pays users via PayPal or Payoneer. It has the best market payout rates, offering unparalleled revenue. Short.am also run a referral program wherein you can earn 20% extra commission for life.
  2. Linkbucks: Linkbucks is another best and one of the most popular sites for shortening URLs and earning money. It boasts of high Google Page Rank as well as very high Alexa rankings. Linkbucks is paying $0.5 to $7 per 1000 views, and it depends on country to country.
    The minimum payout is $10, and payment method is PayPal. It also provides the opportunity of referral earnings wherein you can earn 20% commission for a lifetime. Linkbucks runs advertising programs as well.
    • The payout for 1000 views-$3-9
    • Minimum payout-$10
    • Referral commission-20%
    • Payment options-PayPal,Payza,and Payoneer
    • Payment-on the daily basis

  3. CPMlink: CPMlink is one of the most legit URL shortener sites.You can sign up for free.It works like other shortener sites.You just have to shorten your link and paste that link into the internet.When someone will click on your link.
    You will get some amount of that click.It pays around $5 for every 1000 views.They offer 10% commission as the referral program.You can withdraw your amount when it reaches $5.The payment is then sent to your PayPal, Payza or Skrill account daily after requesting it.
    • The payout for 1000 views-$5
    • Minimum payout-$5
    • Referral commission-10%
    • Payment methods-Paypal, Payza, and Skrill
    • Payment time-daily

  4. Shrinkearn.com: Shrinkearn.com is one of the best and most trusted sites from our 30 highest paying URL shortener list.It is also one of the old URL shortener sites.You just have to sign up in the shrinkearn.com website. Then you can shorten your URL and can put that URL to your website, blog or any other social networking sites.
    Whenever any visitor will click your shortener URL link you will get some amount for that click.The payout rates from Shrinkearn.com is very high.You can earn $20 for 1000 views.Visitor has to stay only for 5 seconds on the publisher site and then can click on skip button to go to the requesting site.
    • The payout for 1000 views- up to $20
    • Minimum payout-$1
    • Referral commission-25%
    • Payment methods-PayPal
    • Payment date-10th day of every month

  5. Short.pe: Short.pe is one of the most trusted sites from our top 30 highest paying URL shorteners.It pays on time.intrusting thing is that same visitor can click on your shorten link multiple times.You can earn by sign up and shorten your long URL.You just have to paste that URL to somewhere.
    You can paste it into your website, blog, or social media networking sites.They offer $5 for every 1000 views.You can also earn 20% referral commission from this site.Their minimum payout amount is only $1.You can withdraw from Paypal, Payza, and Payoneer.
    • The payout for 1000 views-$5
    • Minimum payout-$1
    • Referral commission-20% for lifetime
    • Payment methods-Paypal, Payza, and Payoneer
    • Payment time-on daily basis

  6. Ouo.io: Ouo.io is one of the fastest growing URL Shortener Service. Its pretty domain name is helpful in generating more clicks than other URL Shortener Services, and so you get a good opportunity for earning more money out of your shortened link. Ouo.io comes with several advanced features as well as customization options.
    With Ouo.io you can earn up to $8 per 1000 views. It also counts multiple views from same IP or person. With Ouo.io is becomes easy to earn money using its URL Shortener Service. The minimum payout is $5. Your earnings are automatically credited to your PayPal or Payoneer account on 1st or 15th of the month.
    • Payout for every 1000 views-$5
    • Minimum payout-$5
    • Referral commission-20%
    • Payout time-1st and 15th date of the month
    • Payout options-PayPal and Payza

  7. Clk.sh: Clk.sh is a newly launched trusted link shortener network, it is a sister site of shrinkearn.com. I like ClkSh because it accepts multiple views from same visitors. If any one searching for Top and best url shortener service then i recommend this url shortener to our users. Clk.sh accepts advertisers and publishers from all over the world. It offers an opportunity to all its publishers to earn money and advertisers will get their targeted audience for cheapest rate. While writing ClkSh was offering up to $8 per 1000 visits and its minimum cpm rate is $1.4. Like Shrinkearn, Shorte.st url shorteners Clk.sh also offers some best features to all its users, including Good customer support, multiple views counting, decent cpm rates, good referral rate, multiple tools, quick payments etc. ClkSh offers 30% referral commission to its publishers. It uses 6 payment methods to all its users.
    • Payout for 1000 Views: Upto $8
    • Minimum Withdrawal: $5
    • Referral Commission: 30%
    • Payment Methods: PayPal, Payza, Skrill etc.
    • Payment Time: Daily

  8. LINK.TL: LINK.TL is one of the best and highest URL shortener website.It pays up to $16 for every 1000 views.You just have to sign up for free.You can earn by shortening your long URL into short and you can paste that URL into your website, blogs or social media networking sites, like facebook, twitter, and google plus etc.
    One of the best thing about this site is its referral system.They offer 10% referral commission.You can withdraw your amount when it reaches $5.
    • Payout for 1000 views-$16
    • Minimum payout-$5
    • Referral commission-10%
    • Payout methods-Paypal, Payza, and Skrill
    • Payment time-daily basis

  9. Adf.ly: Adf.ly is the oldest and one of the most trusted URL Shortener Service for making money by shrinking your links. Adf.ly provides you an opportunity to earn up to $5 per 1000 views. However, the earnings depend upon the demographics of users who go on to click the shortened link by Adf.ly.
    It offers a very comprehensive reporting system for tracking the performance of your each shortened URL. The minimum payout is kept low, and it is $5. It pays on 10th of every month. You can receive your earnings via PayPal, Payza, or AlertPay. Adf.ly also runs a referral program wherein you can earn a flat 20% commission for each referral for a lifetime.
  10. Wi.cr: Wi.cr is also one of the 30 highest paying URL sites.You can earn through shortening links.When someone will click on your link.You will be paid.They offer $7 for 1000 views.Minimum payout is $5.
    You can earn through its referral program.When someone will open the account through your link you will get 10% commission.Payment option is PayPal.
    • Payout for 1000 views-$7
    • Minimum payout-$5
    • Referral commission-10%
    • Payout method-Paypal
    • Payout time-daily

  11. Cut-win: Cut-win is a new URL shortener website.It is paying at the time and you can trust it.You just have to sign up for an account and then you can shorten your URL and put that URL anywhere.You can paste it into your site, blog or even social media networking sites.It pays high CPM rate.
    You can earn $10 for 1000 views.You can earn 22% commission through the referral system.The most important thing is that you can withdraw your amount when it reaches $1.
    • The payout for 1000 views-$10
    • Minimum payout-$1
    • Referral commission-22%
    • Payment methods-PayPal, Payza, Bitcoin, Skrill, Western Union and Moneygram etc.
    • Payment time-daily

  12. BIT-URL: It is a new URL shortener website.Its CPM rate is good.You can sign up for free and shorten your URL and that shortener URL can be paste on your websites, blogs or social media networking sites.bit-url.com pays $8.10 for 1000 views.
    You can withdraw your amount when it reaches $3.bit-url.com offers 20% commission for your referral link.Payment methods are PayPal, Payza, Payeer, and Flexy etc.
    • The payout for 1000 views-$8.10
    • Minimum payout-$3
    • Referral commission-20%
    • Payment methods- Paypal, Payza, and Payeer
    • Payment time-daily

  13. Linkrex.net: Linkrex.net is one of the new URL shortener sites.You can trust it.It is paying and is a legit site.It offers high CPM rate.You can earn money by sing up to linkrex and shorten your URL link and paste it anywhere.You can paste it in your website or blog.You can paste it into social media networking sites like facebook, twitter or google plus etc.
    You will be paid whenever anyone will click on that shorten a link.You can earn more than $15 for 1000 views.You can withdraw your amount when it reaches $5.Another way of earning from this site is to refer other people.You can earn 25% as a referral commission.
    • The payout for 1000 views-$14
    • Minimum payout-$5
    • Referral commission-25%
    • Payment Options-Paypal,Bitcoin,Skrill and Paytm,etc
    • Payment time-daily

Explore Simple Game Algorithms With Color Walk: Part 10

We're back for another round of exploring game algorithms using the simple game Color Walk. We finally reached the point of evaluating Dijkstra's algorithm—the classic, efficient graph algorithm for finding shortest paths—in the last post. It performed pretty well against the top dogs: Greedy Look-Ahead (GLA) and the GLA-BFS hybrid, especially when it came to consistently finding the best moves. However, it failed to find the best moves when a board could be solved in under 29 moves, so we're going to see if we can squeeze out any more performance by modifying Dijkstra's algorithm further. To do that, we're going to try combining Dijkstra's algorithm with GLA, running Dijkstra's algorithm in more than one pass, and changing the heuristic we use to guide the search.

Dijkstra and an Assist


We saw in the last post that we couldn't use Dijkstra's algorithm in its purest form because that would still require searching the entire move graph to find the true shortest path from the source vertex (the start-of-game) to the sink vertex (the end-of-game). In fact, Dijkstra's algorithm, when run to completion, will find the shortest path from the source vertex to every other vertex in the graph. Since the move graph is actually a tree, we don't care what the shortest path is to most of the vertices, save one, the end-of-game vertex. Because of that restriction, we restricted the algorithm to only search until the end-of-game vertex was found, and then try to balance the search heuristic so that we reached that vertex on as short of a path as possible.

This tactic of using a heuristic search and stopping once a goal is reached is actually a variant of Dijkstra's algorithm by another name, called A* search. This algorithm is a popular way to do path finding in games where computer-controlled characters are moving around in a 2D or 3D space. The natural heuristic in that application is the straight-line distance from the current position of the character to the target position, and A* search is pretty effective at this task.

In using a heuristic for the Color Walk move graph search, we have given up the guarantee of finding the true shortest path because the heuristic is not perfect, but we gain a huge benefit in efficiency and tractability. Without the heuristic, the search would go on forever (or at least until it ran out of memory) in such a large graph. Even with the current performance of the algorithm, we want to try to tighten up the heuristic to find a shorter path, but to do that, we want to do something to shrink the size of the graph that it needs to search. To do that, we can add in our old friend GLA to make fast headway into the move graph before switching to Dijkstra's algorithm.

Adding this hybrid GLA-Dijkstra's algorithm is straightforward. We start with the normal task of adding the algorithm to the list of choices in the algorithm pull-down list and to the switch statement that lives behind the list:
  function Solver() {
// ...

this.init = function() {
// ...

$('#solver_type').change(function () {
switch (this.value) {
// ...
case 'greedy-dijkstra':
that.solverType = that.dijkstraWithGla;
that.metric = areaCount;
break;
default:
that.solverType = that.roundRobin;
break;
}

// ...
});

// ...
};
}
The implementation of the hybrid algorithm is about as simple as the other hybrid algorithms:
    this.dijkstraWithGla = function() {
if (moves < 15) this.greedyLookAhead();
else this.dijkstra();
}
It seemed like running GLA for 15 moves was reasonable, considering most boards are not solved in less than 30 moves, and then Dijkstra's algorithm is run to the end-of-game condition. Now we have a problem, though. We have two knobs to turn—one for the maximum number of moves to look ahead in GLA and one for the scale factor used in Dijkstra's algorithm, but only one text box in the UI. (Another knob would be the number of moves to run GLA for, but we'll just keep that at 15 to reduce the number of combinations to look at.) We'll want to separate those two knobs out by adding another text box for the scale factor to the UI. Let's call it solver_scale_factor and add it as another parameter in the code:
  function Solver() {
var that = this;
var iterations = 0;
var max_moves = 2;
var scale_factor = 25;
var time = 0;
var start_time = 0;

this.index = 0;
this.metric = nullMetric;

this.init = function() {
this.solver = $('<div>', {
id: 'solver',
class: 'control btn',
style: 'background-color:' + colors[this.index]
}).on('click', function (e) {
max_moves = $('#solver_max_moves').val();
scale_factor = $('#solver_scale_factor').val();
that.runAlgorithm();
}).appendTo('#solver_container');

// ...

$('#solver_play').on('click', function (e) {
_block_inspect_counter = 0;
_block_filter_counter = 0;
iterations = $('#solver_iterations').val();
max_moves = $('#solver_max_moves').val();
scale_factor = $('#solver_scale_factor').val();
start_time = performance.now();
time = start_time;
that.run();
});
};

// ...

function addVertices(vertices, depth, prev_control, prev_cleared) {
var stop = false;
_.each(controls, function (control) {
if (control !== prev_control && !stop) {
var removed_blocks = control.checkGameBoard(depth, markedBlockCount);
if (endOfGame()) {
doMarkedMoves();
vertices.clear();
stop = true;
} else if (removed_blocks - prev_cleared > 0) {
var markers_dup = markers.slice();
var cost = scale_factor*depth - removed_blocks;
if (removed_blocks > 590 ||
removed_blocks > 560 && vertices.length > 200000) {
cost -= (scale_factor - 5)*depth;
}
vertices.queue({markers: markers_dup,
depth: depth,
control: control,
cost: cost,
cleared: removed_blocks});
}
}
});

return vertices;
}
Inside addVertices() we simply replace max_moves with the new parameter scale_factor. Now we can independently control both parameters and more easily explore variations on this hybrid algorithm. After much experimentation with the max moves in the range of 4-7 and the scale factor in the range of 25-30 using ten iterations, I found that a max moves of 7 and a scale factor of 28 performed well. Then, running for 100 iterations produced the following results.

Color Walk results for 100 iterations of GLA-Dijkstra hybrid

This is quite good performance, meeting or exceeding the best algorithms in every metric except for the standard deviation as compared to Dijkstra's algorithm alone. But Dijkstra's algorithm didn't do as well on the min, mean, or max statistics, so in absolute terms the hybrid algorithm found better move sequences for nearly every board.

Before looking at the table of algorithm performance, let's add in another quick algorithm by reversing GLA and Dijkstra's algorithm to create the Dijkstra-GLA hybrid algorithm. We can add it to the algorithm list:
  function Solver() {
// ...

this.init = function() {
// ...

$('#solver_type').change(function () {
switch (this.value) {
// ...
case 'dijkstra-greedy':
that.solverType = that.glaWithDijkstra;
that.metric = areaCount;
break;
default:
that.solverType = that.roundRobin;
break;
}

// ...
});

// ...
};
}
And add another simple algorithm function that calls both of the base algorithms in the hybrid algorithm:
    this.glaWithDijkstra = function() {
if (moves < 5) this.dijkstra(300);
else this.greedyLookAhead();
}
Notice that the call to Dijkstra's algorithm now includes an argument of 300. This argument is the number of blocks that should be cleared before Dijkstra's algorithm stops. It's pretty easy to limit the algorithm by adding a condition to the if statement where the algorithm is stopped before it runs out of memory:
    this.dijkstra = function(blocks_to_clear = 600) {
var vertices = new PriorityQueue({ comparator: function(a, b) { return a.cost - b.cost } });
vertices = addVertices(vertices, 1, null, blocks[0].cluster.blocks.length);
this.max_depth = 0;
while (vertices.length > 0) {
var vertex = vertices.dequeue();
markers = null;
markers = vertex.markers;

if (vertices.length > 250000 ||
vertex.cleared >= blocks_to_clear) {
doMarkedMoves();
vertices.clear();
} else {
vertices = addVertices(vertices, vertex.depth + 1, vertex.control, vertex.cleared);
}

vertex.markers = null;
}
this.index = null;
}
By the default parameter, all blocks are cleared when the algorithm is run so the other two calls to dijkstra() still work like they did before. For this run the max moves was still set at 7, but the scale factor had to be rolled back to 25, like it was for Dijkstra's algorithm alone because otherwise it would stall on some boards. The performance of this hybrid algorithm comes out surprisingly worse:

Color Walk run with Dijkstra-GLA algorithm of 100 iterations

I didn't expect that just swapping the order of the two algorithms would have such a marked difference in performance. The slightly smaller scale factor doesn't account for the difference, either, because if it's set to 28, as it was in the GLA-Dijkstra algorithm, the performance is even worse. Let's look at how these two hybrid algorithms stack up to the rest of the algorithms we've looked at so far:

AlgorithmMinMeanMaxStdev
RR with Skipping 37 46.9 59 4.1
Random with Skipping 43 53.1 64 4.5
Greedy 31 39.8 48 3.5
Greedy Look-Ahead-2 28 37.0 45 3.1
Greedy Look-Ahead-5 25 33.1 41 2.8
Max Perimeter 29 37.4 44 3.2
Max Perimeter Look-Ahead-2 27 35.0 44 2.8
Perimeter-Area Hybrid 31 39.0 49 3.8
Deep-Path 51 74.8 104 9.4
Path-Area Hybrid 35 44.2 54 3.5
Path-Area Hybrid Look-Ahead-4 32 38.7 45 2.7
BFS with Greedy Look-Ahead-5 26 32.7 40 2.8
DFS with Greedy Look-Ahead-5 25 34.8 43 3.9
Dijkstra's Algorithm 29 33.1 40 1.9
GLA-Dijkstra Hybrid 25 31.8 37 2.2
Dijkstra-GLA Hybrid 28 36.3 44 3.1

While the GLA-Dijkstra hybrid performs better than any other algorithm we've seen so far, and seems to combine all of the best characteristics of its constituent algorithms, Dijkstra-GLA doesn't even perform as well as Dijkstra's algorithm alone. It's more on the level of the max perimeter heuristic, which is decidedly middle-of-the-road as far as these algorithms go. Looking at the boards from a high level, this disparity makes some sense. It looks like at the beginning of a game it's more important to figure out how to remove as many blocks as possible on each move. As the game progresses and gets closer to the end, where the graph search algorithms can "see" more easily to the end of the game, their ability to find the shortest path becomes more effective, and that benefit is especially true for Dijkstra's algorithm because it's more efficient than the other graph search algorithms. Swapping Dijkstra's algorithm and GLA ends up crippling both of them.

Self-Assist


A curious idea comes out of these hybrid algorithms by thinking about the difference between Dijkstra's algorithm and GLA. GLA operates on a per move basis, meaning for each move under consideration, the algorithm looks some number of moves ahead and then commits to a move before going on to consider the next move. If we string one GLA algorithm together with another GLA, it wouldn't look any different than running GLA all the way through in one pass.

In contrast, Dijkstra's algorithm looks as far forward as it's allowed to try to find the shortest path to the end-of-game condition, and once a path is found, it does all of the moves in that path at once. If we string Dijkstra's algorithm together with another Dijkstra's algorithm, running the first one to the halfway point, it looks different than running Dijkstra's algorithm once for the entire board. The combination of the first run to the halfway point and the second run to the end may find quite a different path than a single run does. It should also run faster because the paths it needs to search are shorter by half. Let's give this idea a try by running Dijkstra's algorithm with itself. First, we add the new hybrid algorithm to the list of choices again:
  function Solver() {
// ...

this.init = function() {
// ...

$('#solver_type').change(function () {
switch (this.value) {
// ...
case 'dijkstra-dijkstra':
that.solverType = that.dijkstraDijkstra;
that.metric = areaCount;
break;
default:
that.solverType = that.roundRobin;
break;
}

// ...
});

// ...
};
}
And then we can simply call Dijkstra's algorithm twice for the implementation of dijkstraDijkstra() (it's so fun to say, isn't it?):
    this.dijkstraDijkstra = function() {
if (moves < 5) this.dijkstra(300);
else {
scale_factor = 28;
this.dijkstra();
}
}
The first call to dijkstra() specifies the number of blocks to remove to get to the halfway point. The second call changes the scale_factor to the optimal value for when Dijkstra's algorithm is run for the later moves, as we found in the GLA-Dijkstra algorithm. The scale_factor for the first run can be set through the UI, so we can experiment a little. We could add another UI element so that two scale factors could be specified, but this should demonstrate the idea without adding that complication. With this simple addition to the algorithms, we can see how it performs:

Color Walk run with Dijkstra-Dijkstra hybrid algorithm for 100 iterations

This version of the hybrid Dijkstra's algorithm performs better than Dijkstra-GLA, but worse than GLA-Dijkstra, adding more evidence to the idea that Dijkstra's algorithm does better in the second half of the game than the first half. The first run of Dijkstra's algorithm to remove 300 blocks probably does not do as well as GLA, but the second run does do better than GLA, giving this hybrid a performance result that lands it squarely in between the other two hybrid approaches.

An Assist from the Perimeter


One more option to explore for amping up Dijkstra's algorithm is using other heuristics with the GLA part of the hybrid algorithm. We've continued to use the heuristic of maximizing blocks removed with areaCount(), but we did look at a number of other options for heuristics. Even though they didn't improve over the super-strong area-maximizing heuristic, the other heuristics are potentially interesting for use in paring down the move graph before running Dijkstra's algorithm. They're quite easy to add to our list of algorithms, so let's look at one of them, the perimeterCount() heuristic for maximizing the cleared perimeter:
  function Solver() {
// ...

this.init = function() {
// ...

$('#solver_type').change(function () {
switch (this.value) {
// ...
case 'max-perimeter-dijkstra':
that.solverType = that.dijkstraWithGla;
that.metric = perimeterCount;
break;
default:
that.solverType = that.roundRobin;
break;
}

// ...
});

// ...
};
}
It's so simple that all we had to do was add another choice to the algorithm list and add another case to the switch statement that uses the dijkstraWithGla() algorithm and the perimeterCount() heuristic. Everything else is already available and ready to go. So how does it perform?

Color Walk run with Max-Perimeter-Dijkstra hybrid algorithm for 100 iterations

It looks like another decent algorithm—slightly better than Dijkstra's algorithm alone, but not quite as good as GLA-Dijkstra. Here's the updated table of all the algorithms tried so far:

AlgorithmMinMeanMaxStdev
RR with Skipping 37 46.9 59 4.1
Random with Skipping 43 53.1 64 4.5
Greedy 31 39.8 48 3.5
Greedy Look-Ahead-2 28 37.0 45 3.1
Greedy Look-Ahead-5 25 33.1 41 2.8
Max Perimeter 29 37.4 44 3.2
Max Perimeter Look-Ahead-2 27 35.0 44 2.8
Perimeter-Area Hybrid 31 39.0 49 3.8
Deep-Path 51 74.8 104 9.4
Path-Area Hybrid 35 44.2 54 3.5
Path-Area Hybrid Look-Ahead-4 32 38.7 45 2.7
BFS with Greedy Look-Ahead-5 26 32.7 40 2.8
DFS with Greedy Look-Ahead-5 25 34.8 43 3.9
Dijkstra's Algorithm 29 33.1 40 1.9
GLA-Dijkstra Hybrid 25 31.8 37 2.2
Dijkstra-GLA Hybrid 28 36.3 44 3.1
Max-Perimeter-Dijkstra Hybrid 27 32.8 38 2.3

We have built up quite a list of algorithms, with some of the best performing ones at the very end finally overcoming the surprisingly solid performance of one of the earlier algorithms, GLA-5. If we're looking only at average performance, the GLA-Dijkstra hybrid is the clear winner, with BFS+GLA-5 and Max-Perimeter-Dijkstra hybrid coming in second and third with an average of one extra move per game. However, that higher performance in number of moves comes at a cost. Those algorithms take significantly longer to search for their results than GLA-5 does. If we ordered these top four algorithms based on search speed, the order would be reversed to GLA-5, Max-Perimeter-Dijkstra hybrid, BFS+GLA-5, and GLA-Dijkstra hybrid. At the top of the leaderboard there is a clear trade-off between average performance and search time.

While we've looked at graph algorithms in general and Dijkstra's algorithm in particular fairly extensively now, one thing that was somewhat glossed over was the workings of the priority queue that is the key to making Dijkstra's algorithm work so well. Next time we'll take a closer look at this essential data structure and see how it enables Dijkstra's algorithm to quickly choose each vertex to look at next.


Article Index
Part 1: Introduction & Setup
Part 2: Tooling & Round-Robin
Part 3: Random & Skipping
Part 4: The Greedy Algorithm
Part 5: Greedy Look Ahead
Part 6: Heuristics & Hybrids
Part 7: Breadth-First Search
Part 8: Depth-First Search
Part 9: Dijkstra's Algorithm
Part 10: Dijkstra's Hybrids
Part 11: Priority Queues
Part 12: Summary

Battlefield V - Review | Pro-GamersArena




Battlefield V - Review:

Battlefield V's (It's not Battlefield Vietnam which was released back in 2004) road to release hasn't actually been smooth, nor typical of an EA product. And to be honest, I didn't expected going in that playing Battlefield V's multiplayer would feel so much amazing and satisfying as Battlefield V doesn't feel like a complete experience at the launch. Battlefield V creates the impression that there's a sizeable number of modes and significant bug fixes still to be delivered. In this article, you're gonna hear from us about the Battlefield V Review. 


Quick Facts:

  • Initial release date: 15 November 2018
  • First released: 20 November 2018
  • Engine: Frostbite
  • Platforms: PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Microsoft Windows


Straight away, it worth focusing on that while Battlefield V is set during WWII, it doesn't feel outdated. Mechanically speaking, it's the absolute best-feeling Battlefield in quite a while. These short stories plan to tell the stories behind the soldiers that battled in the two world wars, with Battlefield V's selection highlighting some of the more dark records of World War 2. The three being referred to bring a profound jump into the British Special Boat Section, the Norwegian resistance during the German occupation, and the efforts of black West African soldiers in their offer to overthrow the Nazi reign in France. Additionally: for better and for more worse, the game doesn't retread familiar. ground. It spins around the period's lesser-known stories and settings, which can be at the same time reviving and a bit of disappointing, particularly for 1942 fans.



Over the majority of its current multiplayer modes, Battlefield V's default mechanics step toward the hardcore. Health recovery is limited, The time to execute is reduced, and the spotting system is almost entirely removed. And keeping in mind that a portion of these changes feel like a Band-Aid being ripped off, Battlefield V is a superior shooter as a result of them. All things considered, the revisions are more thoughtful than essentially adopting the majority of the hardcore rules. And, in lieu of the whole removal of 3D spotting, just a bunch of gadgets and certain battle characteristics would now be able to put that infamous red circle over enemies heads. This change will help you remain connected with Battlefield V's stunning surroundings instead of playing the HUD. In nutshell, these changes aim to underscore teamplay, fulfilling gunplay, and immersion and every one of them find their marks.

Here's an amazing gameplay by TheRadBrad.





Also Read: Overkill's The Walking Dead - Review 


Most important of all, the gun handling is fluid. Combat feels misleadingly easy, yet it's sufficiently layered to liberally reward skillful play, thoughtful strategies, or more all, teamwork. The maps are generally magnificent and advance shifted playstyles, from the flowing fields of Arras - a moment classic - to the omnipresent, all-knowing bridge of Twisted Steel. Wonderfully, every character class is impactful and enjoyable.

The incentives for coordinating with your four-person squad are borderline coercive. Lost health no longer again recovers past a specific point without a medkit, and ammo reserves are less abundant - most weapons are sustained by just two additional magazines to begin, making a Support partner an exceptionally welcome ally.


But there are many flaws which can't be neglected and need to be fixed as soon as possible like, at launch, Battlefield V was suffering from an unusually high amount of bugs and glitches which can possibly ruin a match. We've read reports of much further issues, but we ourselves have suffered with animation glitches that make pointing from turrets an impossibility, and the act of your weapon isolating from your character meaning you can't aim properly because the butt of your rifle is in your face as opposed to the iron sights. In addition, geometry in some cases neglects to stack in, leaving a church's bell tower suspended in mid-air, while trees and rocks don't show up properly, making them look like pixelated messes. The wonderful finish, however, was the point at which the 'Return to combat area' warning inaccurately showed up on our screen, which means we were killed following eight seconds for absolutely no reason. All of these issues is in all likelihood a basic fix via a patch, but they start to add up after occurring consecutively match after match to make an experience that you can't completely depend on to be reasonable nor stable.

An amazing video showing some funny glitches in Battlefield V by IGN.









Also Read: Cyberpunk 2077 | Release date, trailer, gameplay, news and more.



Battlefield V: Maps And Modes

Battlefield V offers eight maps at launch, and I felt all the maps to be quite enjoyable. Fjell 652 happens on a high-altitude Norwegian mountain overlooking the total of the Norvik map and is liable to exceptional and atmospheric snowstorms. Twisted Steel is built around a huge bridge that serves in as both a fabulous milestone and a functional mechanism to add a straight path to the map's familiar open environment speckled with rural villages.



And coming to modes, Shorter game modes, for example, Team Deathmatch, Domination, and Frontlines make up the numbers to give a multiplayer experience that will feel exceptionally familiar to returning players. Instead of update any of its online mechanics, Battlefield V refines and makes minor enhancements to the chaotic and tremendous battlegrounds it is known for. Despite everything you'll have those great Battlefield moments as you hold out against axis forces while your ticket counter drops to an alarming number, explode a rooftop to cut the rubble down onto your opponents, or you swoop in from the air and take out a target from a plane's gunner seat. There's no enormous disclosure to reveal, rather a stunningly better Battlefield experience to find.




Battlefield V: Company Coins?

Perhaps Battlefield V's greatest takeoff from what it's known for comes as its customization and cosmetic capabilities. Your Company enables you to kit out the four classes of assault, medic, support, and recon to your correct taste, with class particular weapons for each and a preposterous measure of customization to whack to finish everything. Specializations enable you to affect the stats of a weapon, choosing four of eight unique upgrades to better your odds of survival. And in addition that, you can give it an extension and add decals in five distinct territories, and after that, each weapon has its very own level progression to work through. And afterward, there's your soldier themselves, who can be kitted out with various headgear, outfits, and face paint to truly make them look like it. It's an astronomical measure of customisation, and it's everything fuelled by the in-game currency named Company Coins. 


Earned by leveling up and finishing day by day orders, the money can be spent on cosmetic items for either your solider or skins for your weapons. This extends the visual abilities beyond basic unlocks via progression and enables you to pick what you need when you need it. There is no real way to buy Company Coins by means of microtransactions, however, EA has expressed that a different paid currency will be introduced at a later date.


Also Read: Days Gone | PS4 Release date, Gameplay



The Verdict:

Battlefield V is going to be an extraordinary game, of that we're certain, but because of various glaring omissions at launch and one an excessive number of glitches, the final product isn't there just yet. The good news is that fixes are already taking off, and with a year or a greater amount of free maps and modes on the way, Battlefield V can just show signs of improvement from here. 









Persona 3 Vs Persona 4: Which Game Is Better? Part 1: Story


In preparation for Persona 4 Arena: Ultimix and Persona Q coming out soon (I couldn't be more excited for both of these), I figured I'd incite some fanboy rage and do something nobody smart would do: pit two extremely popular games in the same game franchise against each other in a head-to-head to figure out which one is "better." Smart, right? That's like people arguing which Legend of Zelda game is the best (Link to the Past) or which Mario game (RPG, then 2) or which Final Fantasy game (Final Fantasy VI) is the best one. It's all subjective anyway...or is it?

Well, as a preface to this head shooting, social link reversing, Teddie-fur fulled throwdown between two cult classic games, I'll just toss out that I think both games are phenomenal. Even though if you boiled them down to their absolute cores you'd basically have two identical games (get social links, use social links to get personas, use personas to fight monsters, win), both are absolutely worth playing, and if you have any affinity for JRPGs at all you should pick not one, but both up. You also could probably boil them down in completely the same way as I'm doing here and have totally different results based on your own personal opinions. So why compare them?

Because why not. Also my blog needs more hits. What? I pride myself in being totally transparent here.

I'm gettin pumped!

This will probably be huge, but for the sake of some kind of structure I broke the grading credentials down into five major categories: Story, Characters, Graphics, Gameplay, and Music. Each might have subcategories and others might not. They will be split up across four different posts, with Story and Characters getting their own days each, and Graphics, Gameplay, and Music all mushed together followed by a conclusion. I will attempt to be a thorough as possible in my analysis, but keep in mind most everything here is entirely subjective and based on my opinion. However, my goal is to convince you that my opinion is right, so listen close, internet troglodyte!

(I'm sorry I called you a troglodyte that was unkind let's just break this down now shall we)

Oh, and THIS IS YOUR GIANT SPOILER WARNING! I won't ruin endings or who the villain is in Persona 4 or anything, but there will be hints to things that happen later in the plots of these games. It's unavoidable. Deal.


Fanboy pains are all too real. 


Part 1: The Story


Overall Story



I made a comment on my Persona 3 FES review that the story in Persona 3 was, quote, "Not all that original or interesting." After replaying Persona 3 Portable I am totally convinced that I was suffering from mild brain damage when I wrote that review. Persona 3's premise follows a group of high school kids recruited into an organization called SEES, which exists to murder big nasty shadows that appear every month during an hour between midnight and one am where spooky scary shadows come out of their school and try to murder people. Also their school turns into the Tower of Babel except Satan made it.

Yeah, totally run of the mill here.

You know, just a regular story about teens shooting themselves. 
While the story does turn into "teenagers save the world" (which is what I complained about in my earlier review), it manages to subvert it's cliche in a variety of ways. Probably the biggest crazy thing is how high the death count is in this game. I didn't realize until replaying it, but tons of main characters don't make it to the end, often dying in unfair or tragic ways. In addition, most characters have rather traumatic pasts that they have to cope with, which often tie directly into the events of the game. Mitsuru's history, Ken's mom, and Fuuka being a victim of bullying all end up tying into the main story in some crazy ways.

Most importantly, the game has a very clear three act structure, and it feels very tightly knit. While the "kill the big bad, save the whole world!" isn't exactly new, the entire game builds up to this point wonderfully, while still managing a ton of crazy twists and deaths along the way. The game is dark and but doesn't force the issue, letting it's themes and existentialism seep into the plot itself, while still providing a well crafted narrative. It's a complete package, with everything from Igor to Nyx tying together in the end as if it was all made for each other.

The only issue I have with it is that the story is that it doesn't really take off until the start of the second act (basically when you get Shinji as a party member). Up until that point it's a bit on cruise control. After the Shinji plot arch, however, the game kicks right into high gear, never stopping until the end. A minor pacing problem, but one never-the-less.




 While I really enjoyed Persona 4's story, I felt that it really doesn't reach the level of depth that Persona 3 has. This is mostly due to the fact that, at it's core, Persona 4 is a detective story. Somebody is committing murders, and you've gotta find out who. While this makes the story compelling, these types of stories rarely have some sort of large overarching world-saving narrative going on in the background; the main focus is to solve the case and move on. Because of this, the addition of the "True End" boss feels weirdly out of place considering everything you invested in had tied off after solving the mystery.

Another problem with Persona 4 is your detective team sometimes seems to be falling behind on what is going on. Not offensively so, but you'll probably have figured out a lot of who got tossed into the Midnight Channel long before Youske comes to his brilliant deductions. The game also tosses not one, but two rather obvious red herrings that your party eats up before the end, both of which resulting in a "Whew, the case is closed!" and then "Wait, what?" that makes them look kind of slow on the upkeep. In the nicest way possible of course; I love you guys.

Youske: Master Detective. 
That being said, this game isn't lacking for emotional standout moments. The final kidnapping of the game and the scene where it's revealed is arguably one of the tensest, craziest things I've seen in a game, with everybody losing their minds over what happened (and the player in shock that the game would do this to them). After rescuing said undisclosed person, the events following are equally traumatic, with the game taking a rather dark turn out of the blue. This, however, isn't necessarily for strength of the story necessarily, but the strength of the characters it established (which I'll cover later).

As it stands, Persona 4 is an engaging story because it's designed to be. Mysteries are popular because they're easy to follow and are proven to keep readers engaged (look at how well thriller novels sell, and how many are published a year). It's by no means a poor story, but it seems more like a device to both move the gameplay forward and give the characters something to interact over rather than the crux of the game.

That being said, when compared to Persona 3, Persona 4 has a much faster start. It immediately throws you both into the mystery and quickly gives you objectives and explains what has to be done in order to move forward. Because of this, it's first act feels much better paced when compared to it's predecessor's.



Keep in mind, I'm not comparing characters here, I'm comparing the written, underlying story. While Persona 4 is certainly interesting, it doesn't take the risks or make the connections that I feel Persona 3 does. Persona 3 also digs deeper into its lesson on accepting death (which we'll go over more momentarily) and ties it into it's story beats perfectly. Persona 4's core element (learning to accept oneself, finding the truth about a person) isn't tied in quite as tightly with the murder mystery. So, in the end, I think Persona 3 takes this, first act pacing issues aside.


Story of my freaking life. 

Conveyance of Underlying Themes


 Persona 3 is about death. More importantly, it's about learning to accept death, and everything that entails. From the moment the game opens with you shooting yourself in the head to summon your Persona, to the 2/3rds-mark choice as to whether you'd rather continue living in ignorance but inevitably die a horrible death or continue knowing your demise and fight impossible odds against it, this game is heavily ingrained in it's message about dying. Characters have to shoot themselves in the head over and over and over again to summon their personas. Aegis, a robot, questions both whether she is truly alive and, thus, how to cope with her own "death," or if it even exists. The death of a main character rocks the party and makes them realize their own humanity. A freaking ten year old kid attempts suicide in this game, then attempts to murder the person who killed his mom. Ideas about persistence in the face of death and learning to accept that everybody will eventually die, but we have to choose every day to live is a core element of Persona 3, and it executes it near flawlessly.

There's a psychological theory called Terror Management Theory that I really think is interesting (so much so I wrote a paper on it). In a nutshell, everything human beings do and create and react to is in relation to this constant, pervasive knowledge that we will all one day die. Religion, relationships, social structures, creating offspring; all this stuff we do is just reactionary to this dissonance in our heads. We create these things things because thinking about death bothers us. We create buffers to combat it because it's pervasive and, since we are sentient, the realization of our inevitable demises will never, ever go away. Even if we shut it out, the thought of death horrifies us, even if it's dying of old age at the end of a long life. We can't escape it. It's going to happen.

Even your Personas are suicidal. 

Persona 3 so excellently covers not only this type of terror, but also presents ways to overcome it (while still giving you a chance to succumb in a rather important plot choice). The shooting of themselves over and over again, the fighting against impossible odds knowing death is inevitable; all of this is to show that when we learn to embrace it, we no longer fear it. And considering how the final moments of the game play out, the ending is absolutely a perfect capstone on the message the game is trying to convey. It's bittersweet, but it was absolutely necessary for the themes in Persona 3 to persist. In addition, a good deal of the social links in Persona 3 (vs Persona 4) have themes of death and learning to accept death for what it is (particularly the Old Couple and Sick Young Man). I cannot praise this game enough for it's use of symbolism and psychological existentialism.




Persona 4...isn't nearly as dark. People have complained, actually, that it's "too happy" compared to other Persona games, but I don't mind it. Persona 4 seems to really have two main core themes: the idea that we all have a darker side that's a part of us that we don't want to see (but have to inevitably accept if we are to be truthful to ourselves), and the idea of seeking truth (presented in both a personal setting with the characters' individual shadows, and the truth of finding out who the killer is). Of the two of these, the former (accepting oneself for who you are so you can move on to self-improvement) is probably the most prevalent, and similar to Persona 4 this theme not only shows up in the plot but also the social links you find throughout the game.

This idea of self-acceptance is presented extremely well, and arguably the theme across multiple characters is actually stronger here than in Persona 3. Not only does every party member have to overcome and accept their shadow self, but even after the fact their social links have to do with them dealing in the aftermath. The game doesn't pull any punches and say "oh, you accepted this crappy part of you? Happily ever after!" Instead, they are simply made aware of these parts of themselves they don't like, and move to make steps in their lives to adapt accordingly. It's a story about self-improvement and introspection, something I can absolutely get behind.

More like one Youske and one awesome Youske. 
The second portion, the seeking of truth, plays a somewhat lesser role in the story aside from trying to solve the case (though you could argue they're "seeking the truth in themselves," which is a valid point). They try to spin it into the random final boss that just kind of shows up at the very end after the case is solved (the "Seeking of the truth" lead you to realize the game wasn't over even though it clearly tries to get you to avoid the True Ending). Characters bring it up a lot, but honestly it isn't really executed as smoothly. In many ways, the mystery plotline seems distinctly separated from the personal introspective story presented by the characters, or at least not as tightly woven as it could have been.

Still, the themes are still there, are executed well. Truth be told, while they're important, the kind of take a backseat to the character interactions, which is fine but it just shows where more of the focus of this game was.



I'm a sucker for dark, depressing stuff, but that isn't the only reason I think Persona 3 has an edge. First off, as I explained already above, I feel it's underlying themes and message are better woven into the overall narrative. Everything just ties together better, especially considering how you could construe that the events at the end were predetermined from the start, and in that regard innocuous things throughout the game start to find new meaning.

But what I think is more important is Persona 3's story is more relevant on a broader scale. The idea of accepting the inevitability of death and finding the courage to continue living despite that is (as mentioned regarding Terror Management Theory) persistent across every human being from the moment they realize their own mortality until their inevitable passing. This makes the story one that is more "timeless," or at least can be applied to a whole range of ages, genders, etc.

And if Persona 3 couldn't beat the Jesus metaphor in any stronger...

Persona 4's message of introspection and learning to accept oneself, even the worse parts, is arguably just as constant over one's life, but in truth these types of things are usually more commonly explored during adolescence and new adulthood. I, as a 28-year-old married dude who is writing game reviews during his lunch break at work, feel as if I've undergone most of this transformation of learning who I am and coming to accept it. I'm now in the stage where I need to be self-reflective less often but still strive for self-improvement. Deep down I learned who my "true self" was through the "fun" trials of adolescence and my early twenties, and now feel comfortable with myself. That isn't to say everything is gumdrops and buttons, but Persona 4's specific message is less relevant to me than, say, my unavoidable death is.

As such, I found Persona 3's themes to not only be conveyed better in terms of the medium it was presented on, but also felt more powerful and resonated stronger. Of course, I'm also a dude diagnosed with depression so I think about dying like all the time, so I might be a special case. But I still feel that Persona 3 both embraces and conveys it's themes in a much more unified vision than Persona 4 does.


This isn't canon!


Tonal Differences 





As mentioned before, Persona 3 is a dark game. This ties in well to it's predecessors, too, seeing as both Persona and Persona 2 (both parts) are intentionally dark and foreboding. Oddly enough, the style in Persona 3 isn't quite as dark as the previous two (with the characters being more cartoony and the sprites less adult looking), but it still conveys very dark themes.

Persona 3 is about death. I'll just keep saying this until you go insane from hearing it. Characters die, lots of them. The overall color pallet for the world is intentionally bleak and creepy. The Dark Hour is a mix of blood reds, dark greens, and blacks. The menus are a sort of muted blue color, using black as an accent. Even your school feels less bright and cheery (than, say, Persona 4), with the overall world feeling like it's in a haze of dreariness.

#SADBOYS

It fits the game well, tying it's themes into the way it looks nearly perfectly. From the opening scene of Yukari trying to shoot herself in the head and failing, all the way down to it's bleak final boss and shocking ending, Persona 3 knows the message it's trying to convey and isn't pulling any punches. Again, this is a game where a ten-year-old shoots himself in the head over and over to summon his inner self. They aren't kidding around.






While Persona 3 felt like George R. R. Martin writes a high school story, Persona 4 feels like the Scooby Doo after school special. This isn't a bad thing, by any means, but the mood is so dramatically different from P3 (and the rest of the series) it's almost shocking. Gone are drab, dark blues and blacks and reds and are replaced with popping, bumblebee yellows and blacks. Characters are brightly colored and wear brighter clothing (Chie's outfits are a sterling example of this) and just generally feel more alive and happy. And while the game is about solving murders (and does have a few rather dramatic and dark moments), the themes of the game are about overcoming personal problems, which almost every character does handily. The songs are happier and have more pop to them, NPCs you talk to are chipper, and the game is arguably one of the funniest I've ever played. It's in stark contrast with its predecessors, so much so that people actually bag on the game for it (not sure why; not like those other games went anywhere), but as someone once said to me, "This might be the happiest M rated game ever made."

This is a game about sadness and feelings!

This chipper attitude actually does the game some favors, if only for contrast. There is a rather dramatic moment in the game (the final kidnapping) which, had it been in Persona 3, would have been shocking but not as impactful. Putting in in the happy-go-lucky Persona 4, however, makes it all the more dramatic and heartwrenching. It's in this case where it's lulling you into a false sense of security works in the game's favor, and I commend it for it.


It's a TIE?!
It's a copout answer, but it really boils down to what you want in your JRPG story. If you are into dark, bleak stuff because that stuff's your jam (read: you like Game of Thrones or The Last of Us), then Persona 3 is the game for you. It doesn't have the same absurd levels of violence or gore-scars as you might expect from a "dark, adult" game (and I commend it for that; Persona 3 is a rarity among video games where it earns it's M rating for actually being mature, not by adding blood and guts and sex in the hope it'll sell), but it does present a very dark story that will make you think.

Persona 4 is, as I said before, like going on an adventure with all your friends. It has it's ups and its downs, but overall it's a good, fun ride. If you're into hanging out with a lot of funny characters and just having a good time with not as many huge "downer" emotional moments, Persona 4 fits that bill a lot better.

The point being is that I feel both games knew the tone they wanted to convey, and even though the tones are dramatically different, both succeeded equally at what they set out to do. As such, neither really excels over the other in that regard.

Hey, wake up! It's time for the scores!


That's it for today! But what are the scores?


Persona 3 secures an early lead!
But be sure and tune in tomorrow where I blab even more about the characters from these games, top to bottom, nobody is left out! And as always, my reviews for all these games are floating around on the site, should you for some reason want more Persona related nonsense.

Angry at my responses? Want to talk about Terror Management Theory? Care to chat about the storylines of these two games? Please leave a comment and we'll talk about it! I'm always down for some Persona talk, man. Always.