Onward
Last updated: 2026-01-12
- Exceptional VR gunplay realism and mechanics
- Fun and engaging solo or with friends
- Extensive weapon variety and customization
- Severe graphics downgrade and performance issues
- Deteriorated sound design and stability problems
- Declining player base and toxic community
Emotions
Players experience frustration primarily due to technical issues like frequent crashes, connectivity problems with Airlink, and performance stutters on newer headsets like the Quest 3. Additionally, gameplay mechanics such as unintuitive menus, poor controls, and bugs (e.g., bipod sniping difficulties, broken tutorials) exacerbate the issue. Toxic player behavior, including trolls, cheaters, and disruptive children in lobbies, further degrades the multiplayer experience.
Disappointment stems from the perceived decline in game quality after major updates, particularly the 2.0 update, which introduced graphics downgrades, sound design issues, and removal of features like weapon customization. Players feel the developers abandoned the PC version in favor of Quest compatibility, leading to a loss of immersion, repetitive gameplay, and a shrinking player base. Many believe the game no longer lives up to its mil-sim promises or early potential.
Anger is directed at developer decisions, such as prioritizing Quest compatibility over PCVR, which led to graphics downgrades, broken mechanics, and a toxic player environment. Players feel betrayed by corporate influences (e.g., Meta's acquisition) and perceive the developers as incompetent or greedy for abandoning the original vision. Overpricing and false advertising further fuel this emotion.
Excitement is driven by the game's immersive and realistic gameplay, particularly its weapon variety, customization, and competitive PVP modes. Players appreciate the high difficulty in Elite mode, unique mechanics (e.g., realistic weapon handling), and the growing VR esports scene. The 2.0 update's new features and maps also generated positive anticipation.
Satisfaction arises from the game's realistic gunplay, detailed weapon behavior, and smooth performance, especially in PvE modes. Players enjoy the multiplayer experience, crossplay support, and consistent updates that enhance immersion. The overall value and accessibility of the game, despite initial hurdles, contribute to this positive emotion.
Verdict
Mostly negative
Summary
Positive 37% · Negative 63%. Score: 63 / 100
Positives:
- The game is praised for its highly realistic weapon handling, mechanical operations, and immersive gunplay, setting it apart from other VR shooters. Players highlight detailed reloading, sound design, and tactical depth.
- The game is enjoyable both solo and in groups, with mechanics that are easy to pick up but offer depth for long-term engagement. Cooperative PvE modes are a highlight.
- Players appreciate the wide range of weapons, faction-specific loadouts, and deep customization options. The class system and attachment mechanics add strategic depth to gameplay.
- The game delivers a deeply immersive atmosphere, with realistic interactions, adrenaline-inducing moments, and a strong focus on teamwork and tactical gameplay. This enhances the overall VR experience.
- The game offers innovative movement systems and strategies to mitigate motion sickness, making it more accessible to players sensitive to VR discomfort.
Negatives:
- Players report a significant reduction in graphical fidelity, comparing the current state to Quest 1 or N64-era quality. The downgrade affects models, textures, lighting, and overall visual clarity, often requiring full resets to resolve issues.
- Sound quality, spatialization, and weapon audio have been heavily downgraded, described as flat, muffled, or resembling airsoft guns. This degrades immersion and realism.
- Frequent crashes, lag, low FPS (10-30), and optimization problems plague the game post-update. Players cite unstable frame rates, bugs, and poor performance even on high-end PC VR systems.
- The game was downgraded to accommodate Quest compatibility, affecting graphics, sound, and performance for all players. This forced downgrade is widely criticized for prioritizing accessibility over quality.
- The game has lost a significant portion of its player base, with reports of only 16 players at peak times. Toxicity, younger audiences, and degraded gameplay are cited as contributing factors.
Gameplay:
- Players consistently highlight the detailed and realistic weapon handling, including reloading, chambering, and magazine management. Features like manual bolt actions and fire mode switching enhance immersion.
- The game is praised as a realistic military simulator, with comparisons to *Arma* and *Tactical Assault VR*. Features like realistic AI, movement, and weapon physics reinforce this identity.
- Objective-driven gameplay emphasizes teamwork, communication, and strategy. Modes require coordination, with mechanics like reviving teammates and no respawns adding depth.
- Enemy AI exhibits realistic tactics (e.g., suppressing fire, armor use) but faces criticism for AFK bots and inconsistent difficulty. Wave spawn mechanics in co-op are also mentioned.
- Physical movement (crouching, proning) and manual actions (e.g., kneeling) are required, enhancing immersion. Players appreciate the attention to detail in movement systems.
Performance:
- The game frequently crashes, fails to launch, and suffers from significant lag, low FPS, and visual glitches, making it unplayable for many users. These issues persist across updates and hardware configurations.
- Performance varies widely across hardware, with some high-end PCs struggling while low-end systems run smoothly. RAM usage is unusually high, and updates have both improved and degraded performance.
- Adjusting graphics settings, such as reducing quality or disabling certain features, mitigates stuttering, frame rate issues, and overall performance problems for some players.
- VR gameplay suffers from frame duplication (left/right eye), image tearing, and performance disparities between Steam VR and native headset play, particularly on PC VR setups.
- Occasional network-based stuttering, ping-related disadvantages, and connectivity problems (e.g., Airlink) affect gameplay, particularly in multiplayer or VR environments.
Recommendations:
- The game is frequently recommended for fans of tactical shooters, military simulations, and VR enthusiasts, particularly those who enjoy immersive solo or team-based experiences. Its affordability and accessibility further boost its appeal.
- Several reviews suggest other VR tactical shooters (e.g., Pavlov, Tactical Assault VR, Contractors) as better alternatives, either due to superior multiplayer, accessibility, or overall quality.
- Players consistently highlight that the game is more enjoyable when played with friends, despite the lack of local multiplayer. Team-based modes are particularly praised for enhancing the experience.
- While some players feel the game is overpriced in its current state, others argue it’s worth the cost during sales or at lower price points (e.g., $10–$25, 450 rubles).
- The game is praised for its military feel and realism by some (e.g., veterans, airsoft players), but others argue it falls short of a true military simulation, recommending it only for casual mil-sim elements.
Miscellaneous:
- The game is frequently compared to other VR shooters like Vail, Pavlov, and Contractors in terms of crossplay functionality and overall experience. Players highlight its cross-platform capabilities between ecosystems as a key feature.
- Criticism is directed at business decisions that prioritize Oculus compatibility, including downgrades for Quest support, which some players see as compromising quality.
- The game is praised for fostering a mature and competitive player base, with historical livestreamed competitions adding to its esports appeal.
- Players reference version 1.7 as the last 'good' update, implying a decline in quality or satisfaction with subsequent changes.
- Players express dissatisfaction with Meta's acquisition of the game, fearing changes in direction or business priorities. This reflects broader concerns about corporate influence on indie titles.
